- University of Tennessee, Knoxville
1126 Volunteer Blvd.
A204 Bailey Education Complex
Knoxville, TN 37996
- Language and Deafness, Applied Aesthetics, Critical Literacy, Media Literacy, Deaf Education, Aesthetics - interdisciplinary studies, and 50 morePostmodernity, Postmodernism, Pragmatism and Ethnography, Cross cultural studies in disabilities and inclusion, Epistemology, Pragmatism and Practice, Qualitative methodology, Geopolitics, Human Geography, Visual Grammar, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Anarchism & Postmodern Theory, Utopian, Dystopian, and Post-Apocalyptic Fiction, Work Intensification, Politics, Political Geography and Geopolitics, Jacques Rancière, Gunther Kress, Michel Foucault, Genealogy, Critique, Auto-ethnography, Critical Ethnography, Sugata Mitra, Object Oriented Ontology, Aesthetics and Politics, Aestheticism, Education of the Deaf and hard of Hearing, Deaf studies, Aesthetics, Critical Disability Studies, Disability Studies, Deaf Gain, Addressing Deafness: From Hearing Loss to Deaf Gain, Philosophy of Science, Research Methodology, Political Philosophy, Educational Technology, Ethics, Social Sciences, Cultural Studies, Education, Deafhood, Signed Language, Disability Rights, Sign Language Linguistics, Human Rights, Philosophy, Media Studies, Design, and Development Studiesedit
- Michael E. Skyer (PhD) works in deaf pedagogy and deaf curriculum research (basic/applied) strands with foci in techn... moreMichael E. Skyer (PhD) works in deaf pedagogy and deaf curriculum research (basic/applied) strands with foci in technologies and methods of visuality and multimodality. His interests focus on the educative potential of art/design and the means and modes of harm reduction and beneficence enhancement in deaf education, special education, and disability studies. Skyer's (2021) dissertation is titled "Pupil ⇄ Pedagogue: Grounded Theories about Biosocial Interactions and Axiology for Deaf Educators."
Dr. Michael E. Skyer (PhD) was born in Rochester, NY (USA). He attained a Bachelor of Science degree in Fine Arts, focusing on sculpture, drawing, and painting, with a minor in cultural studies, from the College of Imaging Arts and Sciences (former CIAS, now CAD), Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), with a GPA 3.84 (summa cum laude). Skyer then attained a Master of Science degree from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) in the department of Secondary Education for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (MSSE), with a GPA 3.98 (summa cum laude).
Skyer is a teacher-educator, teacher, and advocate, having worked in community-facing and public-school settings prior to matriculating in the PhD program in Teaching, Curriculum, and Change (TC3), at the University of Rochester (UR) in the Margaret Warner School of Education and Human Development (GPA 3.9).
In his pedagogic career, Skyer has mainly worked in deaf higher education. Through his doctoral studies, Skyer was a lecturer, of writing at the baccalaureate level and at the graduate school level, where he is currently employed as a teacher educator in a dual-accredited program of deaf and special education (MSSE). There, Skyer teaches a wide range of courses on the subjects of educational research, cultural and educational diversity, and language learning, among several other subjects.
Since 2018, Skyer has been the Book Review Editor for the American Annals of the Deaf (AAD), the oldest continually-operating scholarly journal of deaf studies in the United States. He is currently co-editing (with Peter H. Smagorinsky, PhD) a special issue of AAD focused on Vygotskian contributions to deaf pedagogy research. Since 2011, Skyer has been the recipient of $25.5K in grant monies. Member of the Golden Key Honor Society (since 2005), Skyer has won several awards, including in art (2003 Silver Key, Sculpture category, National Scholastic Award, in Arts and Writing), fiction writing (2019 Best Emerging Poets, Z Publishing Group) and pre-doctoral scholarship (RIT Presidential Scholarship, 2003-2009; RIT Outstanding Undergraduate Scholar Award, 2006). He is often nominated for awards in teaching excellence, including consecutive nominations for the RIT Provost's Award for Teaching with Technology (2017, 2018, 2019). Skyer was awarded the 2018 Irving K. Zola award for Emerging Scholars in Disability Studies (announced March 5, 2019), for research on the 30th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2021, Skyer was featured, both online and in print, in Scientific American on the subject of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on technosocial pedagogies in deaf education, specifically about how American Sign Language (ASL) is affected by Zoom video conferencing software.edit
This invited presentation considers how "deaf pedagogy" is fundamentally regulated by forms of power and other social forces like self determination in and beyond deaf educational spheres. I ask a few major questions and describe their... more
This invited presentation considers how "deaf pedagogy" is fundamentally regulated by forms of power and other social forces like self determination in and beyond deaf educational spheres. I ask a few major questions and describe their real-world impact across a range of interactions that have meaning in deaf classrooms.
Research Interests:
This invited address was about major ideological issues that characterize the past, present, and future of deaf education, as focused on dissensus (how we disagree) and futurity (what we do next).
Research Interests:
Context: This study synthesizes preliminary findings from a project underwritten by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada). Alongside empirical analysis is an abductive review of the literature. The project is led by... more
Context:
This study synthesizes preliminary findings from a project underwritten by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada). Alongside empirical analysis is an abductive review of the literature. The project is led by research professors who are deaf. While we reflect on our experiences, we highlight epistemic and experiential contributions from our deaf collaborators including: teachers, curriculum-designers, students, artists, and technology experts.
We explore an open-ended definition of deaf aesthetics in education with a mind to apply our working theory in digital environments of pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and learning. With refinements, our theoretical and methodological recommendations may aid deaf agents in several ecologies, including: students and faculty in deaf K-12 education, deaf higher education, and deaf adults/elders and professionals in community education, healthcare settings, and civic domains.
Goals:
• Our focused aim is to understand how deaf aesthetics affect educational interactions involving visual and multimodal resources constructed with digitally-networked computing technologies, including documents, apps, software, and hardware (“resources”).
• Our broader goals include: decreasing inaccessibility and disempowerment, and increasing accessibility and empowerment for all deaf agents who use these resources.
Findings:
• Deaf aesthetics describes stylistic and artistic choices that appeal to “deaf eyes.” While primarily visual, our inquiry is multimodal to account for ethics and heterogeneity in deaf demography (e.g., sensory and sociocultural diversity).
• Aesthetics and design modulate power and access in deaf education; however, this modulating force is not well understood in curriculum-design, pedagogy, and learning. While accessibility-gaps disempower deaf agents, accessible resources may empower deaf teachers and students.
Proposed Standards:
To resolve dilemmas, our synthesis culminates in proposed standards to be refined with future datasets and experimental resources intended to leverage the biosocial strengths of deaf people, including, cognition, embodiment, culture, and language, etc.
To this end, we organized six categories of variables where accessibility and power (via deaf educational aesthetics) are contingent on how resources are conceptualized, designed, and used:
1) multiple languages and multiple language modalities
(e.g., centralization of videos of sign languages, inclusion of clearly written text passages, and decisions about how/if oral languages are represented)
2) still imagery
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of static graphics, drawings, illustrations, shapes, and icons, and subcomponents like line, shape, color, including auxiliary modes like image descriptions)
4) kinetic imagery
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of mobile graphics, .gif files, videos, and other animations, including auxiliary modes like captions and described video texts)
3) format and layout
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of text-passage size and shape, use and arrangement of columns, bullets, lists, and spacing of texts, including the use of bleed lines, headlines and below-the-fold texts, as well as the deft use of negative [“white”] space)
5) font and typography
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of font size and shape, use and arrangement of headlines and body copy, spacing of texts, and inversion options [dark/light mode])
6) user-interface and interactivity
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of static, active, or dynamic user-interfaces, and unidirectional, bidirectional, or rhizomatic formats for participation).
This study synthesizes preliminary findings from a project underwritten by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada). Alongside empirical analysis is an abductive review of the literature. The project is led by research professors who are deaf. While we reflect on our experiences, we highlight epistemic and experiential contributions from our deaf collaborators including: teachers, curriculum-designers, students, artists, and technology experts.
We explore an open-ended definition of deaf aesthetics in education with a mind to apply our working theory in digital environments of pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, and learning. With refinements, our theoretical and methodological recommendations may aid deaf agents in several ecologies, including: students and faculty in deaf K-12 education, deaf higher education, and deaf adults/elders and professionals in community education, healthcare settings, and civic domains.
Goals:
• Our focused aim is to understand how deaf aesthetics affect educational interactions involving visual and multimodal resources constructed with digitally-networked computing technologies, including documents, apps, software, and hardware (“resources”).
• Our broader goals include: decreasing inaccessibility and disempowerment, and increasing accessibility and empowerment for all deaf agents who use these resources.
Findings:
• Deaf aesthetics describes stylistic and artistic choices that appeal to “deaf eyes.” While primarily visual, our inquiry is multimodal to account for ethics and heterogeneity in deaf demography (e.g., sensory and sociocultural diversity).
• Aesthetics and design modulate power and access in deaf education; however, this modulating force is not well understood in curriculum-design, pedagogy, and learning. While accessibility-gaps disempower deaf agents, accessible resources may empower deaf teachers and students.
Proposed Standards:
To resolve dilemmas, our synthesis culminates in proposed standards to be refined with future datasets and experimental resources intended to leverage the biosocial strengths of deaf people, including, cognition, embodiment, culture, and language, etc.
To this end, we organized six categories of variables where accessibility and power (via deaf educational aesthetics) are contingent on how resources are conceptualized, designed, and used:
1) multiple languages and multiple language modalities
(e.g., centralization of videos of sign languages, inclusion of clearly written text passages, and decisions about how/if oral languages are represented)
2) still imagery
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of static graphics, drawings, illustrations, shapes, and icons, and subcomponents like line, shape, color, including auxiliary modes like image descriptions)
4) kinetic imagery
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of mobile graphics, .gif files, videos, and other animations, including auxiliary modes like captions and described video texts)
3) format and layout
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of text-passage size and shape, use and arrangement of columns, bullets, lists, and spacing of texts, including the use of bleed lines, headlines and below-the-fold texts, as well as the deft use of negative [“white”] space)
5) font and typography
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of font size and shape, use and arrangement of headlines and body copy, spacing of texts, and inversion options [dark/light mode])
6) user-interface and interactivity
(e.g., centralization and inclusion of static, active, or dynamic user-interfaces, and unidirectional, bidirectional, or rhizomatic formats for participation).
Research Interests:
Deaf educators and researchers have studied visual tools (VTs) theoretically and empirically. However, we lack pragmatic descriptions of their usage by teachers and students. I synthesized definitions and conducted descriptive analysis to... more
Deaf educators and researchers have studied visual tools (VTs) theoretically and empirically. However, we lack pragmatic descriptions of their usage by teachers and students. I synthesized definitions and conducted descriptive analysis to close this gap based on qualitative case-studies that highlight the practices of deaf educators in University contexts who are deaf themselves. This article addresses three queries about the utility of VTs in deaf education: What are VTs? Why and for whom are VTs used? How are VTs designed and modified?
Research Interests:
Using a meta-narrative superstructure, we synthesize research from 2002-2022 about arts-based deaf education. We ask: What does the literature show about relationships among arts-based pedagogy, curriculum, and deaf human development? Our... more
Using a meta-narrative superstructure, we synthesize research from 2002-2022 about arts-based deaf education. We ask: What does the literature show about relationships among arts-based pedagogy, curriculum, and deaf human development? Our answers analyze the literature’s content and our review process. Regarding content, we: 1a) developed a theoretically-rigorous, evidence-based model of arts-based pedagogy and curriculum synchronized with known characteristics of deaf learners; 1b) devised a sustainable development plan for overall deaf populations and deaf-and-disabled subpopulations, and 1c) identified gaps and dilemmas. Regarding process, we revised extant models of arts-based education, which lacked perspectives on deafness. Therefore, we synthesized: 2a) prior knowledge and experiences in deaf education (research and teaching), with 2b) a typology of arts-integrated pedagogy and curriculum (Bresler, 1995) alongside, 2c) eight studio habits-of-mind (Hetland, 2013; Hetland et al., 2020). In sum, we collate what is un/known about applications and recommended future directions for research about arts-based deaf education.
Research Interests:
Deaf aesthetics is a theoretical framework intended to enhance curricular experiences and pedagogical outcomes. Most instructional-delivery formats lack inborn support for deaf aesthetics; however, prior research illustrates their... more
Deaf aesthetics is a theoretical framework intended to enhance curricular experiences and pedagogical outcomes. Most instructional-delivery formats lack inborn support for deaf aesthetics; however, prior research illustrates their desirability for teachers and students who are deaf. The present mixed-methods case-study empirically evaluates how deaf aesthetics were applied to re-design PowerPoint slide-decks for a course about educational inclusion at the University of Alberta, Canada, involving one deaf faculty member, one deafblind student, and 100+ nondeaf students. Data-collection included two novel surveys about reformatted materials (all class-members), an interview with the deafblind student, and reflections by the deaf instructor. Data-analysis supports the assertation that deaf aesthetics have wide-ranging benefits. The deafblind student reported enhanced learning and reduced cognitive load/study-time. The deaf instructor reported that the process was time-consuming but enjoyable. Additionally, half of the nondeaf students reported positive learning impacts. Overall, deaf aesthetics constitute useful and inclusive guidelines for multimodal educational interactions.
Research Interests:
This presentation updates on an ongoing, funded, multi-year research project introduced at ACEDHH (2023) in San Antonio, TX. We report on our findings from phase 1 which include preliminary results from elicitation studies on preferred... more
This presentation updates on an ongoing, funded, multi-year research project introduced at ACEDHH (2023) in San Antonio, TX. We report on our findings from phase 1 which include preliminary results from elicitation studies on preferred backgrounds, still imagery, format and layouts, font and typography.
The results from the elicitation studies will contribute to the development of deaf aesthetic guidelines for designing lessons, curricula and pedagogical activities. Deaf aesthetics will enable teachers of the deaf to empower students in the provision of learning materials that align with ocularcentricity, that is the preference for learning primarily through vision. The establishment of deaf aesthetic standards will also enable participants to evaluate available curricula and determine its suitability for their students. Finally, in digital environments, participants will be able to identify and develop optimal digital resources using the deaf aesthetics standards as a guide.
The covid pandemic incurred many unprecedented challenges in online learning and necessitated a critical examination of online learning for deaf students. For instance, current platforms such as Zoom allow for small frames featuring speakers and large frames for the presentation of powerpoints, screens, and learning objects. Most digital course material is presented in this manner with the speaker’s voice providing additional and vital information. This standard layout requires visual tracking between the sign language interpreter, text and image and may contribute to cognitive overload. Our literature review suggests that Universal Design for Learning falls short of what is needed for deaf students as they learn through digital applications. Our examination of current learning management systems, computer applications and available resources reveal an audiocentric bias. There is also the need for exchange of learning materials within an OER context, where learning materials and resources can be adapted according to deaf aesthetic standards. Applied deaf aesthetic principles aim to restore power, and agency to deaf students. Overall, we focus on how aesthetics are applied in deaf educational settings. We wish to construct an empirical basis for exploring the theoretical idea of “deaf aesthetics” in digital curriculum design.
In this presentation, we focus on the first phase of our three phase study. Phase 1 includes seven inaugural elicitation studies to examine which backgrounds, layouts, fonts, typographical choices, kinetic imagery, and language modes that our participants prefer. Our participants are young deaf adults (age 18+) in the United States and Canada. The results from this phase will be a (more or less) standardized set of guidelines for “deaf aesthetics.” In this presentation, we report on the preliminary results from the first four elicitation studies on preferred backgrounds, still imagery, format and layouts, font and typography.
Deaf aesthetics and its application to deaf education and pedagogy seeks to elevate all efforts in providing an equitable education for deaf learners. The application of deaf aesthetics to pedagogy and curriculum aims to increase accessibility and engagement within inclusive education environments. Deaf aesthetics seeks to empower students through the design and delivery of learning activities through ocularcentric as well as audiocentric biosocial channels. Deaf aesthetics has a pivotal role to play in increasing engagement through supporting culturally appropriate pedagogy because of its insistence on ocularcentricity as foundational to biosociality and its many diverse forms of deaf culture.
The results from the elicitation studies will contribute to the development of deaf aesthetic guidelines for designing lessons, curricula and pedagogical activities. Deaf aesthetics will enable teachers of the deaf to empower students in the provision of learning materials that align with ocularcentricity, that is the preference for learning primarily through vision. The establishment of deaf aesthetic standards will also enable participants to evaluate available curricula and determine its suitability for their students. Finally, in digital environments, participants will be able to identify and develop optimal digital resources using the deaf aesthetics standards as a guide.
The covid pandemic incurred many unprecedented challenges in online learning and necessitated a critical examination of online learning for deaf students. For instance, current platforms such as Zoom allow for small frames featuring speakers and large frames for the presentation of powerpoints, screens, and learning objects. Most digital course material is presented in this manner with the speaker’s voice providing additional and vital information. This standard layout requires visual tracking between the sign language interpreter, text and image and may contribute to cognitive overload. Our literature review suggests that Universal Design for Learning falls short of what is needed for deaf students as they learn through digital applications. Our examination of current learning management systems, computer applications and available resources reveal an audiocentric bias. There is also the need for exchange of learning materials within an OER context, where learning materials and resources can be adapted according to deaf aesthetic standards. Applied deaf aesthetic principles aim to restore power, and agency to deaf students. Overall, we focus on how aesthetics are applied in deaf educational settings. We wish to construct an empirical basis for exploring the theoretical idea of “deaf aesthetics” in digital curriculum design.
In this presentation, we focus on the first phase of our three phase study. Phase 1 includes seven inaugural elicitation studies to examine which backgrounds, layouts, fonts, typographical choices, kinetic imagery, and language modes that our participants prefer. Our participants are young deaf adults (age 18+) in the United States and Canada. The results from this phase will be a (more or less) standardized set of guidelines for “deaf aesthetics.” In this presentation, we report on the preliminary results from the first four elicitation studies on preferred backgrounds, still imagery, format and layouts, font and typography.
Deaf aesthetics and its application to deaf education and pedagogy seeks to elevate all efforts in providing an equitable education for deaf learners. The application of deaf aesthetics to pedagogy and curriculum aims to increase accessibility and engagement within inclusive education environments. Deaf aesthetics seeks to empower students through the design and delivery of learning activities through ocularcentric as well as audiocentric biosocial channels. Deaf aesthetics has a pivotal role to play in increasing engagement through supporting culturally appropriate pedagogy because of its insistence on ocularcentricity as foundational to biosociality and its many diverse forms of deaf culture.
Research Interests:
To teach Deaf Education is to incorporate Disability Justice KRISTINA WILLICHEVA & DR. MICHAEL SKYER THE DISABILITY JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 1. Intersectionality 2. Leadership of Those Most Impacted 3. Anti-Capitalism 4. Cross-Movement... more
To teach Deaf Education is to incorporate Disability Justice
KRISTINA WILLICHEVA & DR. MICHAEL SKYER
THE DISABILITY JUSTICE FRAMEWORK
1. Intersectionality
2. Leadership of Those Most Impacted 3. Anti-Capitalism
4. Cross-Movement Solidarity
5. Wholeness
6. Sustainability
7. Cross-Disability Solidarity
8. Interdependence
9. Collective Access
10. Collective Liberation
COMMUNITY
Focus: Engaging with the community to learn, advocate, affirm, and foster connections
1.Community panels 2.Deaf advocacy
3.Visual language modeling 4.Connections with Deaf
schools and programs 5.Partnerships with influential
Deaf community members 6.Mentoring initiative
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE
Synthesizing and actualizing Lev Vygotsky's principles through multilingualism and multimodality
Vygotsky firmly believed that:
Deaf, DeafBlind, and Disabled ways of being are a part of natural human diversity, especially in a pluralistic lens.
Signed languages are crucial cognitive foundations. Flexibility promotes inclusion.
Teachers have an ethical responsibility to implement multilingual and multimodal instruction, reject linguistic hierarchies, and embrace neurodiversity.
The direct-action imperative is the root of liberation.
VYGOTSKIAN PRINCIPLES INTERTWINED WITH DISABILITY JUSTICE
1. Focusing on intact cognitive capabilities rather than deficits.
2. Recognizing that early sign access empowers and enables development
and how it is rooted in justice.
3. Perceiving deafness as a dynamic, contingent way of being,
that it is simply a sensory configuration.
4. Criticizing systemic ableism and audism that constrains deaf lives.
5. Calling for deaf education to be led by those with lived expertise.
6. Embracing multimodal, pluralistic approaches to language and learning.
MEDICAL
Focus: Building a crossover between medical and teaching spheres to advance change to disrupt the system
1.Conversations with professionals 2.Roleplaying with families about
choices
3.Advocacy work toward medical
school curricula
4.Onsite visits with clinics 5.Communicating options without
ableist lens
6.Relationships with medical leaders
EDUCATION
Focus: Having future teachers analyze barriers & codify accessible practices ranging from physical to linguistic realms
1.Readings from Disability Studies in education
2.Universal Design for Learning 3.Advocacy work as a hearing person 4.Community members as co-
instructors
5.Videos of disability rights activism 6.Nonviolent community
accountability practices
SELECT REFERENCES
Berne, Patty and Sins Invalid. (2015). 10 Principles of Disability Justice. Retrieved from sinsinvalid.org. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The Fundamentals of Defectology.
Willicheva, K., & Hall, W. C. (2023). From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles: Vygotskian-Inspired Conclusions for Biomedicine and Deaf Education. American Annals of the Deaf (Washington, D.C. 1886), 168(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2023.a904171
KRISTINA WILLICHEVA & DR. MICHAEL SKYER
THE DISABILITY JUSTICE FRAMEWORK
1. Intersectionality
2. Leadership of Those Most Impacted 3. Anti-Capitalism
4. Cross-Movement Solidarity
5. Wholeness
6. Sustainability
7. Cross-Disability Solidarity
8. Interdependence
9. Collective Access
10. Collective Liberation
COMMUNITY
Focus: Engaging with the community to learn, advocate, affirm, and foster connections
1.Community panels 2.Deaf advocacy
3.Visual language modeling 4.Connections with Deaf
schools and programs 5.Partnerships with influential
Deaf community members 6.Mentoring initiative
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE
Synthesizing and actualizing Lev Vygotsky's principles through multilingualism and multimodality
Vygotsky firmly believed that:
Deaf, DeafBlind, and Disabled ways of being are a part of natural human diversity, especially in a pluralistic lens.
Signed languages are crucial cognitive foundations. Flexibility promotes inclusion.
Teachers have an ethical responsibility to implement multilingual and multimodal instruction, reject linguistic hierarchies, and embrace neurodiversity.
The direct-action imperative is the root of liberation.
VYGOTSKIAN PRINCIPLES INTERTWINED WITH DISABILITY JUSTICE
1. Focusing on intact cognitive capabilities rather than deficits.
2. Recognizing that early sign access empowers and enables development
and how it is rooted in justice.
3. Perceiving deafness as a dynamic, contingent way of being,
that it is simply a sensory configuration.
4. Criticizing systemic ableism and audism that constrains deaf lives.
5. Calling for deaf education to be led by those with lived expertise.
6. Embracing multimodal, pluralistic approaches to language and learning.
MEDICAL
Focus: Building a crossover between medical and teaching spheres to advance change to disrupt the system
1.Conversations with professionals 2.Roleplaying with families about
choices
3.Advocacy work toward medical
school curricula
4.Onsite visits with clinics 5.Communicating options without
ableist lens
6.Relationships with medical leaders
EDUCATION
Focus: Having future teachers analyze barriers & codify accessible practices ranging from physical to linguistic realms
1.Readings from Disability Studies in education
2.Universal Design for Learning 3.Advocacy work as a hearing person 4.Community members as co-
instructors
5.Videos of disability rights activism 6.Nonviolent community
accountability practices
SELECT REFERENCES
Berne, Patty and Sins Invalid. (2015). 10 Principles of Disability Justice. Retrieved from sinsinvalid.org. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The Fundamentals of Defectology.
Willicheva, K., & Hall, W. C. (2023). From Vicious Circles to Virtuous Cycles: Vygotskian-Inspired Conclusions for Biomedicine and Deaf Education. American Annals of the Deaf (Washington, D.C. 1886), 168(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2023.a904171
Research Interests:
The Biosocial Foundation of Vygotsky’s Defectology: Examining Deaf Pedagogy in Sociohistorical Contexts. Michael E. Skyer In Fundamentals of Defectology, Vygotsky (1993) succinctly argues: “There is not a single instance where the... more
The Biosocial Foundation of Vygotsky’s Defectology:
Examining Deaf Pedagogy in Sociohistorical Contexts.
Michael E. Skyer
In Fundamentals of Defectology, Vygotsky (1993) succinctly argues: “There is not a single instance where the biological can be separated from the social” (p. 92). Although Defectology discretely examines social, biological, psychological, and methodological categories, its core argument is that none exist in isolation; instead, they flow as complex interactions, which produce traceable cultural histories. In kind, defectology, pedology, and pedagogy result from biological and social dimensions of human experiences coming into contact and generating syntheses that transcend their parts.
Given Vygotsky’s polymathic genius, it’s worth examining his biosocial claims about human developmental potential. I delimit my scope to critical disability and deaf education studies (e.g., defectology), and focus on understanding how the evolving science of deaf pedagogy is catalyzed by sociohistorical forces (e.g., power and self-determination) and axiology (e.g., ethics and aesthetics). For Vygotsky, deaf pedagogy works toward the sublation of deafness. Researchers and teachers must holistically examine the interactions and dialectics that flow together as sociocultural, psychological, discursive, developmental, and educational sub-processes. Research about deaf pedagogy, therefore, rests on biosocial foundations, where deafness is situated in and constructed by conflicts of culture, history, and socio-politics, including structural dilemmas and methodological dissensus.
Reference:
Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Plenium Press.
Examining Deaf Pedagogy in Sociohistorical Contexts.
Michael E. Skyer
In Fundamentals of Defectology, Vygotsky (1993) succinctly argues: “There is not a single instance where the biological can be separated from the social” (p. 92). Although Defectology discretely examines social, biological, psychological, and methodological categories, its core argument is that none exist in isolation; instead, they flow as complex interactions, which produce traceable cultural histories. In kind, defectology, pedology, and pedagogy result from biological and social dimensions of human experiences coming into contact and generating syntheses that transcend their parts.
Given Vygotsky’s polymathic genius, it’s worth examining his biosocial claims about human developmental potential. I delimit my scope to critical disability and deaf education studies (e.g., defectology), and focus on understanding how the evolving science of deaf pedagogy is catalyzed by sociohistorical forces (e.g., power and self-determination) and axiology (e.g., ethics and aesthetics). For Vygotsky, deaf pedagogy works toward the sublation of deafness. Researchers and teachers must holistically examine the interactions and dialectics that flow together as sociocultural, psychological, discursive, developmental, and educational sub-processes. Research about deaf pedagogy, therefore, rests on biosocial foundations, where deafness is situated in and constructed by conflicts of culture, history, and socio-politics, including structural dilemmas and methodological dissensus.
Reference:
Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Plenium Press.
Research Interests:
This presentation has four major sections. The first overviews the presenter's CV. The second describes "Curriculum Studies" and "Deaf Curriculum Studies" using contrasting definitions, situated under a broad rubric of theories of power.... more
This presentation has four major sections. The first overviews the presenter's CV. The second describes "Curriculum Studies" and "Deaf Curriculum Studies" using contrasting definitions, situated under a broad rubric of theories of power. The third explores an application of contrasting definitions. The final sections accounts for the future of "Deaf Curriculum Studies" as a research enterprise.
Research Interests:
a. Multimodal transduction (MT) is an interaction in deaf education that traverses changes in epistemology and ontology. Deaf faculty use MT to convert inaccessible modes to become accessible, often by enhancing visuality or... more
a. Multimodal transduction (MT) is an interaction in deaf education that traverses changes in epistemology and ontology. Deaf faculty use MT to convert inaccessible modes to become accessible, often by enhancing visuality or multimodality. Deaf faculty enhance perceptibility by changing modalities, including the full range of language-based and communication-based discourse modes. Throughout MT, deaf pedagogues aim to preserve meaning, which is “carried across” one mode (or ensemble) into another, using an aesthetic mechanism similar to metaphors.
2. Theoretical Framework:
a. My research began with an interest in visual pedagogy theory and methods (Rose, 2012) as a means to resolve problems in deaf education, including inexplicit teaching theories (Swanwick & Marschark 2010). As the study developed, I drew on theories of multimodality (Hodges & Kress, 1998; Kress, 2010), the aesthetics of educational change (Cherryholmes, 1999), and the ethics of deaf education (Christensen, 2010). My study used deaf axiology (Skyer, 2021) to synthesize a set of novel theories about visual and multimodal pedagogy in deaf education. Empirical demonstrations of theoretical ideas, which prior research (Kusters, et al., 2017) lacked, were interpreted through a conceptual framework about dissensus and conflict (Rancière, 2010) in pedagogic contexts (Kress, 2010).
3. Methodological Overview:
a. I examined pedagogical praxis in a collective (qualitative) case-study involving six deaf educators who are themselves also deaf. I called the group “deaf faculty.” They represent the diversity of both the research site and the wider deaf student population. Evidence gathered from each of the six cases formed the basis for several grounded theories, built atop a large corpus (1.38 terabytes) of multimodal data. It was analyzed using abductive reasoning, analytic memos, and multimodal coding procedures (via MAXQDA software). Data included video and images from authentic observations of teaching, in-depth interviews, and stimulated recall (sessions where participants co-analyzed selections of their data as prompts).
4. Key Findings:
a. I found that multimodal transduction (MT) occurred in nearly all teaching and learning interactions in deaf education. I present evidence showing that when deaf faculty apply MT in teaching, deaf students emulate the process and MT reappears in their learning products. The mechanism by which MT works is also its purpose—to change knowledge forms without substantially changing its content (Kress, 2010). The etymology of transduction shows movement across or through two stages, using the same underlying logic as scientific and poetic metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Sfard, 1998).
b. MT is and requires a change from one mode or set (e.g., mode ensembles or assemblages of modes) into another. While this can use language at either the starting, intermediate, or ending stages, MT is not limited to language (c.f., Swanwick, 2017). When deaf faculty used MT in these case studies, it usually resulted in increased visuality; however, on the whole, MT is multimodal in character (Kusters, et al., 2017; Tapio, 2013).
c. Deaf faculty often change knowledge to be more accessible for deaf learners, knowledge is thus, made more ethical by virtue of its increasing focus on visual and multimodal aesthetic properties. Deaf students and faculty used MT for particular purposes across a myriad of interactions, most of which centered on increasing access, enhancing interactivity, but also for the sheer aesthetic joy of change.
d. MT is an “umbrella” encapsulating a broader range of related changes to other discourse forms (See: Illustration 1, below). Furthermore, in the course of the study, I found it useful to disambiguate MT with similar concepts such as: translanguaging, code switching and “chaining” (Humphries & McDougall, 2000). Throughout, I use qualitative data to ground, explain, and clarify claims
a. MT is equally important in teaching as in learning. MT is widely and creatively used, owing to its flexibility and adaptivity. MT uses but extends beyond language. It is useful for all deaf students, regardless of cooccurring disabilities or language dysfluency. In sum, MT is an interactionary epistemic-ontological conjunction where the form of knowledge changes, and with it, new realities are manifested for deaf agents. In this, the aesthetic is a signpost to meaning-making.
2. Theoretical Framework:
a. My research began with an interest in visual pedagogy theory and methods (Rose, 2012) as a means to resolve problems in deaf education, including inexplicit teaching theories (Swanwick & Marschark 2010). As the study developed, I drew on theories of multimodality (Hodges & Kress, 1998; Kress, 2010), the aesthetics of educational change (Cherryholmes, 1999), and the ethics of deaf education (Christensen, 2010). My study used deaf axiology (Skyer, 2021) to synthesize a set of novel theories about visual and multimodal pedagogy in deaf education. Empirical demonstrations of theoretical ideas, which prior research (Kusters, et al., 2017) lacked, were interpreted through a conceptual framework about dissensus and conflict (Rancière, 2010) in pedagogic contexts (Kress, 2010).
3. Methodological Overview:
a. I examined pedagogical praxis in a collective (qualitative) case-study involving six deaf educators who are themselves also deaf. I called the group “deaf faculty.” They represent the diversity of both the research site and the wider deaf student population. Evidence gathered from each of the six cases formed the basis for several grounded theories, built atop a large corpus (1.38 terabytes) of multimodal data. It was analyzed using abductive reasoning, analytic memos, and multimodal coding procedures (via MAXQDA software). Data included video and images from authentic observations of teaching, in-depth interviews, and stimulated recall (sessions where participants co-analyzed selections of their data as prompts).
4. Key Findings:
a. I found that multimodal transduction (MT) occurred in nearly all teaching and learning interactions in deaf education. I present evidence showing that when deaf faculty apply MT in teaching, deaf students emulate the process and MT reappears in their learning products. The mechanism by which MT works is also its purpose—to change knowledge forms without substantially changing its content (Kress, 2010). The etymology of transduction shows movement across or through two stages, using the same underlying logic as scientific and poetic metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Sfard, 1998).
b. MT is and requires a change from one mode or set (e.g., mode ensembles or assemblages of modes) into another. While this can use language at either the starting, intermediate, or ending stages, MT is not limited to language (c.f., Swanwick, 2017). When deaf faculty used MT in these case studies, it usually resulted in increased visuality; however, on the whole, MT is multimodal in character (Kusters, et al., 2017; Tapio, 2013).
c. Deaf faculty often change knowledge to be more accessible for deaf learners, knowledge is thus, made more ethical by virtue of its increasing focus on visual and multimodal aesthetic properties. Deaf students and faculty used MT for particular purposes across a myriad of interactions, most of which centered on increasing access, enhancing interactivity, but also for the sheer aesthetic joy of change.
d. MT is an “umbrella” encapsulating a broader range of related changes to other discourse forms (See: Illustration 1, below). Furthermore, in the course of the study, I found it useful to disambiguate MT with similar concepts such as: translanguaging, code switching and “chaining” (Humphries & McDougall, 2000). Throughout, I use qualitative data to ground, explain, and clarify claims
a. MT is equally important in teaching as in learning. MT is widely and creatively used, owing to its flexibility and adaptivity. MT uses but extends beyond language. It is useful for all deaf students, regardless of cooccurring disabilities or language dysfluency. In sum, MT is an interactionary epistemic-ontological conjunction where the form of knowledge changes, and with it, new realities are manifested for deaf agents. In this, the aesthetic is a signpost to meaning-making.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Four linked sessions about (historical and) contemporary ethical dilemmas in deaf education, specifically in the praxis of deaf pedagogy. The aim of the workshop is to identify and interrupt problems in deaf education which have long... more
Four linked sessions about (historical and) contemporary ethical dilemmas in deaf education, specifically in the praxis of deaf pedagogy.
The aim of the workshop is to identify and interrupt problems in deaf education which have long frustrated its transformation. Each of the three sessions will be led by Skyer, consisting of a multimodal presentation of instructional materials (Lecture), with identified focus areas (Questions), and educational objective. Sessions will require interactive participation by the audience, grouped in one of several Learning Pods. Each Learning Pods will consist of ~5 MU-MA/Deaf Ed. students, ~2 MU Faculty, and ~10 deaf community members. Participants will use Lecture materials and Questions to explore and apply concepts in novel contexts. In doing so, pods will create artifacts and generate discussions (documented via video technologies) that will constitute evidence of learning. Following the three sessions, MU Faculty facilitators will facilitate a closing discussion using a Roundtable format.
Attendees will leave the workshop with a better understanding of:
Session 1: The Curious Case of Vygotsky in Soviet Russia: History, Theory, Deaf Pedagogies
Session 2: Phonocentrism and Ocularcentrism: A Tale of Two Contrasting Discourse Ideologies
Session 3: Transformation and Deaf Multimodal-Visual Pedagogy: Evidence from the Field
Session 4: Theory and Strategy for Deaf Education in 2021 and Beyond: A Roundtable
The aim of the workshop is to identify and interrupt problems in deaf education which have long frustrated its transformation. Each of the three sessions will be led by Skyer, consisting of a multimodal presentation of instructional materials (Lecture), with identified focus areas (Questions), and educational objective. Sessions will require interactive participation by the audience, grouped in one of several Learning Pods. Each Learning Pods will consist of ~5 MU-MA/Deaf Ed. students, ~2 MU Faculty, and ~10 deaf community members. Participants will use Lecture materials and Questions to explore and apply concepts in novel contexts. In doing so, pods will create artifacts and generate discussions (documented via video technologies) that will constitute evidence of learning. Following the three sessions, MU Faculty facilitators will facilitate a closing discussion using a Roundtable format.
Attendees will leave the workshop with a better understanding of:
Session 1: The Curious Case of Vygotsky in Soviet Russia: History, Theory, Deaf Pedagogies
Session 2: Phonocentrism and Ocularcentrism: A Tale of Two Contrasting Discourse Ideologies
Session 3: Transformation and Deaf Multimodal-Visual Pedagogy: Evidence from the Field
Session 4: Theory and Strategy for Deaf Education in 2021 and Beyond: A Roundtable
Research Interests: Discourse Analysis, Deaf Culture, Deaf studies, Case Study Research, Discourse, and 9 moreDeaf Education, Vygotsky, Deafness and Hearing Loss, Language and Deafness, Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory, Deafblindness, Education of the Deaf and hard of Hearing, Deaf Children and Education, and Deaf Pedagogy
Recent survey data show that student-teaching is a transformative and pivotal component of teacher- preparation for deaf educators. During student teaching, deaf educators-in training face complex problems and interdependent issues that... more
Recent survey data show that student-teaching is a transformative and pivotal component of teacher- preparation for deaf educators. During student teaching, deaf educators-in training face complex problems and interdependent issues that they must confront, including the transference of theoretical knowledge gained in coursework into concrete teaching praxis. Likewise, new teachers of deaf students must learn how negotiate themselves as legitimate knowers (and as learners) within an established deaf educational system or context. This presentation will take the form of a panel composed of several early-career deaf educators from diverse background. The discussion will be led by Michael E. Skyer, Senior Lecturer in the Master of Science in Secondary Education for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (MSSE). The discussion will focus on newly acquired experiential knowledge gained by early-career deaf educators during student teaching mentorships and other related early-career experiences. Salient issues to be addressed include (but are not limited to): identifying and working with mentors for specific purposes; the role of developing and analyzing self-identity when teaching deaf learners; successful (and not) strategies for effective mentorship (from the perspective of the student-teacher); and creative problem-solving in deaf pedagogy and curriculum. The aim of the discussion is to elucidate best-practices so as to strengthen the relevance and utility of student-teaching within the career arc of a deaf educator. Following prefacing remarks and the discussant-led questions for the panel, there will be time build in for audience questions.
Educational Objectives (List specific measurable actions by participants that will demonstrate comprehension and integration of information presented):
1) identify and describe common issues related to mentoring in deaf education
2) understand how diversity and identity affect mentoring in deaf education
3) determine best practices for mentoring in deaf education
4) propose questions about mentoring in deaf education
Media/Materials (List the print, audio and visual materials you will use. Who is responsible for providing them?)
One PPT presentation (in development) will contain the following:
1) Brief literature review on mentoring in deaf education
2) Survey data analysis demonstrating the importance of mentoring in deaf education for early-career educators
3) Questions (5-10) posed to early career teachers (3-4) by the discussant (Skyer).
4) Questions (3-4) posed to early career teachers by audience participants
Educational Objectives (List specific measurable actions by participants that will demonstrate comprehension and integration of information presented):
1) identify and describe common issues related to mentoring in deaf education
2) understand how diversity and identity affect mentoring in deaf education
3) determine best practices for mentoring in deaf education
4) propose questions about mentoring in deaf education
Media/Materials (List the print, audio and visual materials you will use. Who is responsible for providing them?)
One PPT presentation (in development) will contain the following:
1) Brief literature review on mentoring in deaf education
2) Survey data analysis demonstrating the importance of mentoring in deaf education for early-career educators
3) Questions (5-10) posed to early career teachers (3-4) by the discussant (Skyer).
4) Questions (3-4) posed to early career teachers by audience participants
Research Interests:
Author: Michael E. Skyer Institutions: 1) Senior Lecturer in the Master of Science in Secondary Education (MSSE) for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Department, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of... more
Author: Michael E. Skyer
Institutions: 1) Senior Lecturer in the Master of Science in Secondary Education (MSSE) for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Department, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY; and 2) PhD Candidate in the Teaching, Curriculum, and Change Program (T&C) at the Margret Warner School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Abstract:
Value conflicts surrounding axiology (ethics and aesthetics) in deaf education include longstanding disagreements about deafness in terms of the senses, cognition, language, and power. This analysis centralizes the role of vision, a historically undertheorized domain of deaf pedagogy. Axiological conflicts about vision and deaf education result in a lack of empirical research and a dearth of productive theory about teaching. The lack of theory about vision in deaf pedagogy stymies scholarly progress for researchers and educators who seek to transform the field. Likewise, it exacerbates already-complex problems related to deaf students’ learning and contributes to harm being done to deaf children in schools.
Dissensus—a lack of agreement in theories on deafness—obscures educational research which connect the aforementioned threads; however, dissensus also engenders a new philosophical orientation that productively examines conflicts in deaf education theory. The field of deaf education desperately needs empirically-grounded theories about how and why deaf educators teach using visual discourses, visual tools, and visual modes of communication, described here in sum as deaf visual pedagogy. This research synthesis establishes the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological groundwork necessary for a comprehensive comparative analysis across four paradigms of deaf education research.
Methodological considerations for feasibility (in terms of teaching and research) are linked to deaf research via discussions of deaf epistemologies, deaf ontologies, and through the introduction of deaf axiology. To examine the ethics and aesthetics of the visual in deaf education is to productively critique structural and affective dimensions of valuation in deaf pedagogy. Yet critique alone is insufficient. Thus, this ongoing project rejects deaf education’s traditional reactive stance to developments of theory and welcome a proactive and decidedly deaf-centric paradigm shift. The establishment of the biosocial paradigm is future-oriented and explicitly confronts contested issues of pedagogy including embodiment in pedagogical interactions and ocularcentricity in biopower.
Institutions: 1) Senior Lecturer in the Master of Science in Secondary Education (MSSE) for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Department, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY; and 2) PhD Candidate in the Teaching, Curriculum, and Change Program (T&C) at the Margret Warner School of Education and Human Development, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Abstract:
Value conflicts surrounding axiology (ethics and aesthetics) in deaf education include longstanding disagreements about deafness in terms of the senses, cognition, language, and power. This analysis centralizes the role of vision, a historically undertheorized domain of deaf pedagogy. Axiological conflicts about vision and deaf education result in a lack of empirical research and a dearth of productive theory about teaching. The lack of theory about vision in deaf pedagogy stymies scholarly progress for researchers and educators who seek to transform the field. Likewise, it exacerbates already-complex problems related to deaf students’ learning and contributes to harm being done to deaf children in schools.
Dissensus—a lack of agreement in theories on deafness—obscures educational research which connect the aforementioned threads; however, dissensus also engenders a new philosophical orientation that productively examines conflicts in deaf education theory. The field of deaf education desperately needs empirically-grounded theories about how and why deaf educators teach using visual discourses, visual tools, and visual modes of communication, described here in sum as deaf visual pedagogy. This research synthesis establishes the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological groundwork necessary for a comprehensive comparative analysis across four paradigms of deaf education research.
Methodological considerations for feasibility (in terms of teaching and research) are linked to deaf research via discussions of deaf epistemologies, deaf ontologies, and through the introduction of deaf axiology. To examine the ethics and aesthetics of the visual in deaf education is to productively critique structural and affective dimensions of valuation in deaf pedagogy. Yet critique alone is insufficient. Thus, this ongoing project rejects deaf education’s traditional reactive stance to developments of theory and welcome a proactive and decidedly deaf-centric paradigm shift. The establishment of the biosocial paradigm is future-oriented and explicitly confronts contested issues of pedagogy including embodiment in pedagogical interactions and ocularcentricity in biopower.
Research Interests:
Deafness is unbound by geography. Deaf people constitute a heterogeneous, globalized ethnic minority who are singularly linked. Often thought to be rendered powerless by disability, deaf people generate forms of power that disrupt... more
Deafness is unbound by geography. Deaf people constitute a heterogeneous, globalized ethnic minority who are singularly linked. Often thought to be rendered powerless by disability, deaf people generate forms of power that disrupt conventional ontology and epistemology by way of divergent adaptations of visuospatial language modalities. As creators and users, deaf people have positioned themselves at the cutting-edge of innovation by developing and repurposing digital technologies to secure insurgent power in the face of sociopolitical oppression. This paper establishes digital environments of deaf education (DE2) as an object of study. Research reviewed in this study (Bauman & Murray, 2014; Thoutenhoofd, 2010; Young and Temple, 2014), demonstrates that multimodality is a critically important but undertheorized concept related to power in deaf education. The paper reviews multimodality theory, entrained as a lens to examine DE2. Findings are subdivided into three categories: (1) the purposes for which DE2 are used, (2) the practices constitutive of DE2, and (3) the characteristics of learners and educators within DE2. The paper closes by examining DE2 exemplars via multimodality.
This paper contextualizes multimodality theory in digital-epistemological paradigms and analyzes their combined effects upon operations of power in deaf pedagogical practices, including how knowledge is created and shared by deaf people using digital technologies and pedagogical practices derived thereof. This investigation examines how technosocial tools are embedded in a nexus of historical, social, political, and educational changes—at key times, deaf people effectuate change with celerity. This paper argues that theoretical deaf research is clarified by multimodality; likewise, multimodality benefits by considering deaf ontologies/epistemologies. Converging domains illuminate the dynamism and synergy of technosocial changes in history, and contributes to literatures on the history of technology by documenting complex, interdependent relationships between digital knowledge modalities and the deaf users who drive their development.
This paper contextualizes multimodality theory in digital-epistemological paradigms and analyzes their combined effects upon operations of power in deaf pedagogical practices, including how knowledge is created and shared by deaf people using digital technologies and pedagogical practices derived thereof. This investigation examines how technosocial tools are embedded in a nexus of historical, social, political, and educational changes—at key times, deaf people effectuate change with celerity. This paper argues that theoretical deaf research is clarified by multimodality; likewise, multimodality benefits by considering deaf ontologies/epistemologies. Converging domains illuminate the dynamism and synergy of technosocial changes in history, and contributes to literatures on the history of technology by documenting complex, interdependent relationships between digital knowledge modalities and the deaf users who drive their development.
Research Interests:
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... more
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).
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).
Research Interests:
This workshop on Deaf Gains in Education was presented in Rome, NY at the 32nd Annual ESSP Conference, now called the Partners in Deaf Education Conference. The workshop provides a synthesis of research about Deaf Gain, and focuses on... more
This workshop on Deaf Gains in Education was presented in Rome, NY at the 32nd Annual ESSP Conference, now called the Partners in Deaf Education Conference. The workshop provides a synthesis of research about Deaf Gain, and focuses on applying the theory to k-12 school settings. Theory and philosophy, such as deaf epistemologies, are described in terms of pedagogical and curricular adaptations. The workshop also describes a case-study of deaf gain in action then concludes with an interactive discussion about applying the theory to refine the pedagogical work of current practicing educators and sign language interpreters of the deaf.
Research Interests:
Deaf Gain theory is a significant advancement in deaf research and deaf education. This presentation synthesizes main principles of deaf gain and situates the theory in deaf education research methodologies and pedagogical methods for... more
Deaf Gain theory is a significant advancement in deaf research and deaf education. This presentation synthesizes main principles of deaf gain and situates the theory in deaf education research methodologies and pedagogical methods for deaf education. A case study is presented, analyzed, and linked to pedagogical praxis leveraging deaf gains in education.
Research Interests:
Empirical and theoretical research on deaf education exists at a nexus of paradigms: (1) Philological, (2) Biomedical, (3) Sociocultural, and (4) Biocultural. Each contrasting approach regards the visual differently in terms of deaf... more
Empirical and theoretical research on deaf education exists at a nexus of paradigms: (1) Philological, (2) Biomedical, (3) Sociocultural, and (4) Biocultural. Each contrasting approach regards the visual differently in terms of deaf pedagogy theory and practice, all are shaped by historical deficit ideologies regarding deaf ways of knowing and being as well as by modern scientific dissensus on the status of visual signed languages and communication modalities. Advances in, or convergences of deaf theory are heuristically drawn out of the research corpora in this critical review of extant research, illustrating three consequential branches for theorists of deaf pedagogy: deaf visual ontology and ocularcentric deaf epistemology, imbricated in systems of deaf educational axiology. This study confronts theoretical gaps and synthesizes radical advances from deaf learning research toward the development of a concomitant deaf visual pedagogy theoretical framework. Combined, these convergences illustrate a contemporary theoretical framework useful for deaf educators inclusive to visual-kinetic classroom discourses, visible-tactile communication modes, and signed-spatial languages.
Research Interests:
Deaf students are often positioned as outsiders with regard to academic writing. The recent turn away from “literature” or “language arts” and toward composition and rhetoric in many academic departments has isolated... more
Deaf students are often positioned as outsiders with regard to academic writing. The recent turn away from “literature” or “language arts” and toward composition and rhetoric in many academic departments has isolated deaf/Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing students who often lack the sophisticated jargon of academic composition as well as the conceptual framework for rhetoric and academic argument (Hermsen and Franklin, 2008). By using hybrid forms of multimodal literacy, K-12 teachers can employ radically different tools that are designed to foster greater inclusion and autonomy by positioning students as authentic creators of new knowledge in a variety of languages and communication modes.
This study is based on three years worth of in-depth qualitative interviews with deaf college students regarding their learning processes, language acquisition strategies, and attitudes necessary for success in composition/rhetoric/academic writing. Data are sourced from student-produced personal reflections (in ASL and English) following a 1-semester course in college composition. This study employs the theoretical lenses of Deaf Gain (Bauman and Murray, 2014; 2013) and social multimodality (Kress, 2010) to clarify its claims. This study relies on qualitative methodologies, including discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) and autoethnography (Denizen, 2014) to synthesize emergent themes from multiple cohorts of deaf adolescent youth becoming acculturated to academic prose. The findings from this inductive analysis are then mapped out and applied to K-12 education in a variety of settings.
Considerations and themes emphasize the use of social and interactive methods for learning and highlight the importance of using digitally mediated, multimodal tools to teach academic rhetoric. The study also notes the importance of facilitating motivation in student learning, and the overarching need for devising and curating visual strategies for teaching deaf students working in sign, speech, print, and other visual media. Additional themes include the complex nature of identity development in the writing process and note the importance of intersectionality with regard to deafness, disability, language, and culture. Finally, implications for using the above themes as vectors for teaching and learning in K-12 settings are discussed. This exploratory study reiterates the need for educators to engage in authentic dialogue with students throughout the educational process and indicates that multimodal communication frameworks are ethically, theoretically, and empirically sound approaches to deaf literacy development at all stages of deaf education.
This study is based on three years worth of in-depth qualitative interviews with deaf college students regarding their learning processes, language acquisition strategies, and attitudes necessary for success in composition/rhetoric/academic writing. Data are sourced from student-produced personal reflections (in ASL and English) following a 1-semester course in college composition. This study employs the theoretical lenses of Deaf Gain (Bauman and Murray, 2014; 2013) and social multimodality (Kress, 2010) to clarify its claims. This study relies on qualitative methodologies, including discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) and autoethnography (Denizen, 2014) to synthesize emergent themes from multiple cohorts of deaf adolescent youth becoming acculturated to academic prose. The findings from this inductive analysis are then mapped out and applied to K-12 education in a variety of settings.
Considerations and themes emphasize the use of social and interactive methods for learning and highlight the importance of using digitally mediated, multimodal tools to teach academic rhetoric. The study also notes the importance of facilitating motivation in student learning, and the overarching need for devising and curating visual strategies for teaching deaf students working in sign, speech, print, and other visual media. Additional themes include the complex nature of identity development in the writing process and note the importance of intersectionality with regard to deafness, disability, language, and culture. Finally, implications for using the above themes as vectors for teaching and learning in K-12 settings are discussed. This exploratory study reiterates the need for educators to engage in authentic dialogue with students throughout the educational process and indicates that multimodal communication frameworks are ethically, theoretically, and empirically sound approaches to deaf literacy development at all stages of deaf education.
Research Interests:
Deaf people are a heterogeneous global minority singularly linked by technology. I posit that deaf people wield the cutting-edge of innovation by developing or repurposing digital technologies in deaf education as a means to leverage the... more
Deaf people are a heterogeneous global minority singularly linked by technology. I posit that deaf people wield the cutting-edge of innovation by developing or repurposing digital technologies in deaf education as a means to leverage the affordances of visuospatial sign languages and multimodal communication. Throughout, I investigate a nexus of historical, cultural, social, political, and ideological struggle where deaf people use their own power and self-determination to counteract harmful forces like oppression and exclusion. To do this, I synthesize the digital environments of deaf education (DE 2) and articulate a theory of deaf educational power centered on the interdependence of digital knowledge modes and the deaf users driving their development. I situate modes as a fundamental unit of analysis. Multimodality is related to power and ethics in education and assists in critically analyzing DE 2. Multimodal theory illustrates how power is used in DE 2 and shows ecological relationships between pedagogical ethics and knowledge co-construction by deaf students and educators. In sum; deaf people use multimodal technologies to construct deaf-centric educational power. Three major findings are categorized: (1) the purposes for which DE 2 are designed, (2) the practices constitutive of DE 2 , and (3) disciplines represented in DE 2 research. Two exemplars from category 3 are shown and analyzed. Both interrelate Deaf Culture, sign language, and digital education technologies. One is situated in a deaf student protest about language and communication access. The second is rooted in the multilingual characteristics of an international consortium related to deaf science epistemologies. Overall, I elucidate a social history of technology in deaf education to show that DE 2 is a globalized phenomenon transcending geopolitical boundaries.
Research Interests:
Deaf education is an incoherent macrosystem whose subsystems -e.g., biomedical vs. sociocultural institutionscontradict. Unreconciled tensions cause stagnation, not regeneration, and harmful dissensus in deaf educational subsystems. To... more
Deaf education is an incoherent macrosystem whose subsystems -e.g., biomedical vs. sociocultural institutionscontradict. Unreconciled tensions cause stagnation, not regeneration, and harmful dissensus in deaf educational subsystems. To revitalize deaf education, address these contradictions, and eliminate incoherence, we posit that a deafled systemic transformation of deaf education is necessary; furthermore, we argue it may best be realized through theories and actions constitutive of anarchism. To this end, we synthesize four thematic loci where anarchism overtly aligns with constructs immanent in deaf communities. First, collectivism is necessary for survival in anarchist and deaf communities toward shared goals including equity in education, social labor, and politics. Second, mutual aid is integral-like anarchists who work arm-in-arm, deaf individuals and groups exhibit uncanny solidarity across political, cultural, technological, linguistic, and geographical boundaries. Third, direct action tactics overlap in both groups: When facing internal or external threats, both communities effectively rally local mechanisms to affect change. Finally, both groups exhibit a stubborn, existential refusal to be subdued or ruled by outsiders. Reframing systemic dilemmas in deaf education via anarchism is a novel, beneficial praxis that's only been tangentially explored. Centering anarchism in deaf education also generates succor for ongoing struggles about sign language in deaf communities. Toward the horizon of radical equality, our staunchly anarchist analysis of deaf education argues that to guide deaf-positive system change neoliberalism is inert and neo-fascism anathema.
Research Interests:
Visual tools are everywhere in deaf education. Research demonstrates their
utility and effectiveness. However, many educators lack formal—and
needed—training opportunities.
utility and effectiveness. However, many educators lack formal—and
needed—training opportunities.
Research Interests:
In American Sign Language (ASL), Transgressing the Object IV: Critical Pedagogy (2012) depicts a cinematic form of critical deaf pedagogy. The videotext conceptualizes inequities of power and knowledge in deaf education by analyzing... more
In American Sign Language (ASL), Transgressing the Object IV: Critical Pedagogy (2012) depicts a cinematic form of critical deaf pedagogy. The videotext conceptualizes inequities of power and knowledge in deaf education by analyzing intersections of audism (antideaf oppression) with sexism and ageism. As the participants construct individual and collective deaf epistemologies, they generate egalitarian counter-narratives. To interpret these pluralist discourses, I describe a decisive role for deaf epistemologies in critical deaf pedagogy. I do this by using a theoretical framework about Deaf Culture in teaching and deaf aesthetics in learning. I also illustrate three analytic findings showing: 1) how culturally revitalizing deaf pedagogies are established, 2) how power/knowledge is shared in equitable heterarchies, and 3) the benefits of educational interactions with deaf aesthetics (e.g., classroom architecture, sign language metaphors, and embodied multimodality). Finally, I juxtapose my findings against a conceptual framework about deaf people who use self-determination to struggle for legitimation.
Research Interests:
From a critical pedagogy standpoint, we examined a multimodal and bilingual (American Sign Language and English) vlog titled “Seizing Academic Power.” The vlog (video-text) explores interactions of power and knowledge in deaf research,... more
From a critical pedagogy standpoint, we examined a multimodal and bilingual (American Sign Language and English) vlog titled “Seizing Academic Power.” The vlog (video-text) explores interactions of power and knowledge in deaf research, proposes tools to identify ableism and deficit ideologies, and means to subvert them. By centralizing visuospatial modalities, the vlog’s medium is also its message. Qualitative data were produced via coding cycles then interpreted through two theoretical frameworks focused on culture in critical pedagogy and aesthetics in epistemology. Our analysis highlights conflicts about deaf education in terms of ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Key findings reveal how deaf students gain cultural competence and develop critical consciousness within the classroom, depending on their teachers’ conceptions of marginalized cultures, use of visual language, and aesthetic modes of knowledge. Our study highlights intrinsic and extrinsic deaf gains and concludes with implications for future research in deaf education and digital ASL publications.
Research Interests: Sociology, Aesthetics, Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Higher Education, and 13 moreCritical Pedagogy, Ableism and Ability Studies, American Sign Language, Deaf Education, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Multimodality, Critical Consciousness, Critical Education, American Sign Language-English bilingualism, Vlogs, deaf epistemology, deaf ontology, and deaf axiology
Research Interests:
misaligned environment? This comparison shows that neither vehicle can succeed in the opposite environment and that both environments can fail to sustain movement. And this is, of course, in spite of the perfect engineering of all four... more
misaligned environment? This comparison shows that neither vehicle can succeed in the opposite environment and that both environments can fail to sustain movement. And this is, of course, in spite of the perfect engineering of all four separate components. Thus, the error is in the pairing. This metaphor echoes some of the seafaring symbolism and nautical organizational motifs used by Charlotte Enns, Jonathan Henner, and Lynn McQuarrie in their edited volume Discussing Bilingualism in Deaf Children: Essays in Honor of Robert Hoffmeister, which is intended to catalogue the “state-of-the-art” deaf bilingual scholarship. Three sections employ a linked sailing metaphor: “Seaworthy Construction,” “Launching the Voyage,” and “Sailing Into the Wind.” These sections provoke theoretical insights and useful, actionable strategies. The book’s contributors explore deaf bilingualism vis-à-vis aspects of Hoffmeister’s lengthy career in deaf research—which has legitimized sign language assessments, and championed deaf bilingual pedagogy and the unique capacities of deaf people, as students and professionals. Imagine a road—a great long road, beautifully engineered and impeccably constructed. Imagine, too, a tremendously deep canal conjoining exacting standards with astounding craftsmanship. Envision upon the road an Aston Martin car and on the water a Lürssen yacht. These vehicles are constructed to utmost perfection; each excels in its respective class for transportation. You now have before your mind’s eye the perfect vehicles matched with their perfect transit fields. Indeed, you probably cannot imagine it otherwise. The yacht slices through the water with alacrity. The roadster devours switchbacks. Both vehicles are built with finesse. So too, both transit fields. The alignment of boat and waterway and car and road is exemplary. Their resulting transport is swift. Now, remove the Lürssen yacht from the water and put it on the road. Then pluck the Aston Martin off the road and plunk it inside the canal. The yacht pitches to one side. Its cracked hull rests immobile on tarmac. In turn, the car sucks in water—air furiously bubbles—and drowns. How far can each perfect vehicle go when placed in a perfectly designed but fundamentally
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
: Vygotsky's (1993) Fundamentals of Defectology is a radical's handbook of deaf and disability studies. Vygotsky's overall research program views disabilities, including deafness, from an integrated biosocial and critical... more
: Vygotsky's (1993) Fundamentals of Defectology is a radical's handbook of deaf and disability studies. Vygotsky's overall research program views disabilities, including deafness, from an integrated biosocial and critical theory standpoint. In two movements, I introduce an American Annals of the Deaf Special Issue on Vygotskian perspectives in deaf education focused mainly on his Defectology volume. Movement One describes Vygotsky's life, research, death, and posthumous impact by situating his deaf pedagogy research as one node in a network of defectological pedology , translated as applied special educational psychology. Movement Two describes how Vygotsky's project has been extended, synthesized, and developed in modern and postmodern contexts of deaf education and disability studies. Throughout, I synthesize Vygotsky's claims and update his terms by juxtaposing them with contemporary terms and theories to provide sociohistorical context for the new scholarship comprising this Special Issue's unique contribution to Vygotskian deaf research.
Research Interests:
: Deaf education research and practice have not always lived up to the ideal of improving deaf students' lives. Consequently, we have constructed novel arguments supporting deaf pedagogy using pragmatic ethics, the aim of which is to... more
: Deaf education research and practice have not always lived up to the ideal of improving deaf students' lives. Consequently, we have constructed novel arguments supporting deaf pedagogy using pragmatic ethics, the aim of which is to increase benefit and decrease harm to individuals and society. The ideal of harm reduction asks the pragmatist to pursue the path of action least likely to result in injury to others. Besides applying ideas that reduce harm, educators must also increase benefits for deaf students. Our analysis synthesizes Vygotskian perspectives on deaf pedagogy and pragmatic ideals about reducing harm and increasing benefit. We propose six arguments that can enable deaf educators to think about and enact deaf-positive concepts and strengths-based classroom interactions, including the use of sign language, images, and text, among other modes, such as speech. Our goal is to reduce the threat of harm from language deprivation.
Research Interests:
: Lev Vygotsky (1993) described deaf ontology as dynamic interactions that uniquely but inexorably synthesize biology and society. The deaf biosocial condition is a deceptively simple theory. Principally, it clarifies imbricated issues of... more
: Lev Vygotsky (1993) described deaf ontology as dynamic interactions that uniquely but inexorably synthesize biology and society. The deaf biosocial condition is a deceptively simple theory. Principally, it clarifies imbricated issues of axiology, power, and knowledge by centering positive adaptive compensations that sublate deafness. Using Vygotsky's theoretical proposals, I organized four distinct paradigms of deaf research and analyzed a historical case of sign language deprivation from Soviet Russia in the 1930s. On the basis of this critical literature review and case analysis, I posit that a paradox of inclusion comprises the heart of deaf education, which forces stakeholders to make choices about ethics and evaluate their consequences. Vygotsky urges practitioners to reject disablement and pathology and instead to uplift visuality and multimodality. These foundational values disrupt harmful conditions, improve teaching and learning, and encourage deaf people to transform the deaf body and mind through society.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Philosophy, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, Deaf studies, Disability Studies, and 10 moreCritical Disability Studies, Axiology, Methodology, Conflict, Anarchism, Deaf Education, Deafness and Hearing Loss, Social Ontology and Epistemology, Theories of dissensus and disagreement, and Deaf Studies
This paper contextualizes multimodality theory in digital-epistemological paradigms and analyzes their combined effects upon operations of power in deaf pedagogical practices. Deafness is unbound by geography. Deaf people constitute a... more
This paper contextualizes multimodality theory in digital-epistemological paradigms and analyzes their combined effects upon operations of power in deaf pedagogical practices. Deafness is unbound by geography. Deaf people constitute a heterogeneous, globalized ethnic minority who are singularly linked. Often thought to be rendered powerless by disability, deaf people generate forms of power that disrupt conventional ontology and epistemology by way of divergent adaptations of visuospatial language modalities. As creators and users, deaf people have positioned themselves at the cutting-edge of innovation by developing and repurposing digital technologies to secure insurgent power in the face of sociopolitical oppression. This paper establishes digital environments of deaf education (DE2) as an object of study. Research reviewed in this study (Bauman & Murray, 2014; Thoutenhoofd, 2010; Young and Temple, 2014), demonstrates that multimodality is a critically important but undertheorized concept related to power in deaf education. The paper reviews multimodality theory, entrained as a lens to examine DE2. Findings are subdivided into three categories: (1) the purposes for which DE2 are used, (2) the practices constitutive of DE2, and (3) the characteristics of learners and educators within DE2. The paper closes by examining DE2 exemplars via multimodality. This paper contextualizes multimodality theory in digital-epistemological paradigms and analyzes their combined effects upon operations of power in deaf pedagogical practices, including how knowledge is created and shared by deaf people using digital technologies and pedagogical practices derived thereof. This investigation examines how technosocial tools are embedded in a nexus of historical, social, political, and educational changes—at key times, deaf people effectuate change with celerity. This paper argues that theoretical deaf research is clarified by multimodality; likewise, multimodality benefits by considering deaf ontologies/epistemologies. Converging domains illuminate the dynamism and synergy of technosocial changes in history, and contributes to literatures on the history of technology by documenting complex, interdependent relationships between digital knowledge modalities and the deaf users who drive their development
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
: Lev Vygotsky (1993) described deaf ontology as dynamic interactions that uniquely but inexorably synthesize biology and society. The deaf biosocial condition is a deceptively simple theory. Principally, it clarifies imbricated issues of... more
: Lev Vygotsky (1993) described deaf ontology as dynamic interactions that uniquely but inexorably synthesize biology and society. The deaf biosocial condition is a deceptively simple theory. Principally, it clarifies imbricated issues of axiology, power, and knowledge by centering positive adaptive compensations that sublate deafness. Using Vygotsky's theoretical proposals, I organized four distinct paradigms of deaf research and analyzed a historical case of sign language deprivation from Soviet Russia in the 1930s. On the basis of this critical literature review and case analysis, I posit that a paradox of inclusion comprises the heart of deaf education, which forces stakeholders to make choices about ethics and evaluate their consequences. Vygotsky urges practitioners to reject disablement and pathology and instead to uplift visuality and multimodality. These foundational values disrupt harmful conditions, improve teaching and learning, and encourage deaf people to transform the deaf body and mind through society.
Research Interests:
: Vygotsky's (1993) Fundamentals of Defectology is a radical's handbook of deaf and disability studies. Vygotsky's overall research program views disabilities, including deafness, from an integrated biosocial and critical... more
: Vygotsky's (1993) Fundamentals of Defectology is a radical's handbook of deaf and disability studies. Vygotsky's overall research program views disabilities, including deafness, from an integrated biosocial and critical theory standpoint. In two movements, I introduce an American Annals of the Deaf Special Issue on Vygotskian perspectives in deaf education focused mainly on his Defectology volume. Movement One describes Vygotsky's life, research, death, and posthumous impact by situating his deaf pedagogy research as one node in a network of defectological pedology , translated as applied special educational psychology. Movement Two describes how Vygotsky's project has been extended, synthesized, and developed in modern and postmodern contexts of deaf education and disability studies. Throughout, I synthesize Vygotsky's claims and update his terms by juxtaposing them with contemporary terms and theories to provide sociohistorical context for the new scholarship comprising this Special Issue's unique contribution to Vygotskian deaf research.
Research Interests:
Deaf education is an incoherent macrosystem whose sub‐systems—e.g., biomedical vs. sociocultural institutions—contradict. Unreconciled tensions cause stagnation, not regeneration, and harmful dissensus in deaf educational sub‐systems. To... more
Deaf education is an incoherent macrosystem whose sub‐systems—e.g., biomedical vs. sociocultural institutions—contradict. Unreconciled tensions cause stagnation, not regeneration, and harmful dissensus in deaf educational sub‐systems. To revitalize deaf education, address these contradictions, and eliminate incoherence, we posit that a deafled systemic transformation of deaf education is necessary; furthermore, we argue it may best be realized through theories and actions constitutive of anarchism. To this end, we synthesize four thematic loci where anarchism overtly aligns with constructs immanent in deaf communities. First, collectivism is necessary for survival in anarchist and deaf communities toward shared goals including equity in education, social labor, and politics. Second, mutual aid is integral—like anarchists who work arm‐in‐arm, deaf individuals and groups exhibit uncanny solidarity across political, cultural, technological, linguistic, and geographical boundaries. Thir...
Research Interests:
Deaf people are a heterogeneous global minority singularly linked by technology. I posit that deaf people wield the cutting-edge of innovation by developing or repurposing digital technologies in deaf education as a means to leverage the... more
Deaf people are a heterogeneous global minority singularly linked by technology. I posit that deaf people wield the cutting-edge of innovation by developing or repurposing digital technologies in deaf education as a means to leverage the affordances of visuospatial sign languages and multimodal communication. Throughout, I investigate a nexus of historical, cultural, social, political, and ideological struggle where deaf people use their own power and self-determination to counteract harmful forces like oppression and exclusion. To do this, I synthesize the digital environments of deaf education (DE2) and articulate a theory of deaf educational power centered on the interdependence of digital knowledge modes and the deaf users driving their development. I situate modes as a fundamental unit of analysis. Multimodality is related to power and ethics in education and assists in critically analyzing DE2. Multimodal theory illustrates how pow- er is used in DE2 and shows ecological relat...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Multimodal transduction is an interaction of teaching and learning. It traverses changes in epistemology and ontology through judgements about axiology. Using multimodal transduction (MT), students and teachers transcend languages and... more
Multimodal transduction is an interaction of teaching and learning. It traverses changes in epistemology and ontology through judgements about axiology. Using multimodal transduction (MT), students and teachers transcend languages and employ nonlanguage and quasi-language modes (e.g., drawing, color, line, math, infographics, and even sculptures). This study uses qualitative empirical data via grounded theory and case study designs to make theoretical claims about MT in a deaf higher-educational context. The data for this multi-year project were sourced through interviews, document analysis, observations, and stimulated recall with six university professors who are deaf. My analysis shows that these deaf faculty-members employ MT to convert inaccessible modes to become accessible for deaf learners. By changing modalities through MT, deaf faculty enhance comprehensibility and equity for deaf learners. This theoretical account of MT contends, extends, and clarifies aspects of translan...
Research Interests:
This is a critical analysis of the 2019 film, "Sound of Metal," written using a Deaf Gain theoretical lens. The analysis was prompted by a set of Tweets, which were revised and expanded into a chapter. This version is the Portuguese... more
This is a critical analysis of the 2019 film, "Sound of Metal," written using a Deaf Gain theoretical lens. The analysis was prompted by a set of Tweets, which were revised and expanded into a chapter. This version is the Portuguese version. The English version is found here: https://www.academia.edu/87425518/Equalizing_Distortion_A_critical_review_of_Sound_of_Metal_spliced_with_Tweets
Research Interests:
This is a critical analysis of the 2019 film, "Sound of Metal," written using a Deaf Gain theoretical lens. The analysis was prompted by a set of Tweets, which were revised and expanded into a chapter. This version is the English text... more
This is a critical analysis of the 2019 film, "Sound of Metal," written using a Deaf Gain theoretical lens. The analysis was prompted by a set of Tweets, which were revised and expanded into a chapter. This version is the English text (Skyer, 2022, English, Equalizing Distortion). The Portuguese version is found here: https://www.editoraschreiben.com/_files/ugd/e7cd6e_b0fd39cce28d414d979b62b28d98e6d5.pdf
Research Interests:
Recent survey data show that student-teaching is a transformative and pivotal component of teacher- preparation for deaf educators. During student teaching, deaf educators-in training face complex problems and interdependent issues that... more
Recent survey data show that student-teaching is a transformative and pivotal component of teacher- preparation for deaf educators. During student teaching, deaf educators-in training face complex problems and interdependent issues that they must confront, including the transference of theoretical knowledge gained in coursework into concrete teaching praxis. Likewise, new teachers of deaf students must learn how negotiate themselves as legitimate knowers (and erstwhile, learners) within an established deaf educational system or context. This presentation will take the form of a panel composed of several early-career deaf educators from diverse background. The discussion will be led by Michael E. Skyer, Senior Lecturer in the Master of Science in Secondary Education for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (MSSE). The discussion will focus on newly acquired experiential knowledge gained by early-career deaf educators during student teaching mentorships and other related early-car...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Designing inclusive education for deaf learners is a complex dilemma affecting multiple spheres and agents. In the US and Canada, despite considerable work by students, parents, educators, school administrators, curriculum developers, and... more
Designing inclusive education for deaf learners is a complex dilemma affecting multiple spheres and agents. In the US and Canada, despite considerable work by students, parents, educators, school administrators, curriculum developers, and lawmakers to address education policy about deaf bilingual literacy, the provision of deaf education is a wicked problem exacerbated by gaps in curriculum and pedagogy. Despite increasingly hypermodern technologies and mandated early assessment, most deaf high schoolers in North America have unsatisfactory literacy skills (Qi & Mitchell, 2012). To better manage this “wicked problem” involving policy, pedagogical methods, and curriculum design, we explore how aesthetic forms of knowledge and deaf positive design operations are used in conjunction with Open Educational Resources (OER). We reviewed the literature and constructed a novel framework about OER and e-books in deaf education. The synthesis generated three key takeaways that assisted our understanding of the complex issue. We presented our new framework alongside structured questions to 382 attendees hailing from 20 nations at the WUN/UNESCO Conference (2021, October), focused on inclusive and open access education technologies. We empirically analyzed this rich corpus using qualitative coding cycles and represented out findings using a multipart Ecocycle Model. Following basic analysis, we describe four broader implications for deaf education research about teaching and curriculum using OER and e-book materials. Our analysis shows that deaf curriculum design is an educational problem embedded in a larger policy debate concerning methods and philosophies of pedagogy.
Research Interests:
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... more
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.
Research Interests:
Introduction: A full century has passed since Vygotsky began publishing experimental and theoretical work on deaf education in Russia. Vygotsky’s (1993) The Fundamentals of Defectology was translated into English a quarter century ago.... more
Introduction:
A full century has passed since Vygotsky began publishing experimental and theoretical work on deaf education in Russia. Vygotsky’s (1993) The Fundamentals of Defectology was translated into English a quarter century ago. The intervening years show both, tremendous progress and troubling stagnation with regard to the overarching goal of deaf education: improving educational outcomes for deaf learners by way of sophisticated research.
This is a Call for Papers (CFP) to be published as a Special Issue of The American Annals of the Deaf. The editors invite scholars, researchers, and educators in a wide array of contemporary disciplines contributing to deaf research to mine the rich, subterranean veins of Vygotsky’s scholarship about deafness. Only by extracting and refining, can its obscure ore become visible, and thus made bright and useful. Neglected, its potential power is dormant and unrealized.
Scope and Purpose:
Long hidden in obscurity, Vygotsky’s research on deaf education and psychology is significant for modern scholars to consider. The scope of this CFP is largely determined by two texts: Defectology (Vygotsky, 1993), and Skyer’s (2020) “The Bright Triad and Five Propositions,” which contemporizes Vygotsky’s theories within the problem-spaces of modern deaf education. Together, the book and the article constitute the conceptual stage on which the CFP is established.
The CFP aims to reinvigorate the Vygotskian tradition of deaf education research by better understanding both its historical roots and its potential use in contemporary contexts. This CFP is organized around the central problem identified by Skyer (2020): “What exists is an apparent paradox—the simultaneous importance and dearth of Vygotskian deaf education research” (p. 578). As such, the Special Issue has two purposes:
1) Analysis—To better understand the (historically unique) nature of Vygotsky’s original research on deaf education and psychology
2) Synthesis—To better understand contemporary concepts and issues in deaf research in light of Vygotsky’s contributions
A full century has passed since Vygotsky began publishing experimental and theoretical work on deaf education in Russia. Vygotsky’s (1993) The Fundamentals of Defectology was translated into English a quarter century ago. The intervening years show both, tremendous progress and troubling stagnation with regard to the overarching goal of deaf education: improving educational outcomes for deaf learners by way of sophisticated research.
This is a Call for Papers (CFP) to be published as a Special Issue of The American Annals of the Deaf. The editors invite scholars, researchers, and educators in a wide array of contemporary disciplines contributing to deaf research to mine the rich, subterranean veins of Vygotsky’s scholarship about deafness. Only by extracting and refining, can its obscure ore become visible, and thus made bright and useful. Neglected, its potential power is dormant and unrealized.
Scope and Purpose:
Long hidden in obscurity, Vygotsky’s research on deaf education and psychology is significant for modern scholars to consider. The scope of this CFP is largely determined by two texts: Defectology (Vygotsky, 1993), and Skyer’s (2020) “The Bright Triad and Five Propositions,” which contemporizes Vygotsky’s theories within the problem-spaces of modern deaf education. Together, the book and the article constitute the conceptual stage on which the CFP is established.
The CFP aims to reinvigorate the Vygotskian tradition of deaf education research by better understanding both its historical roots and its potential use in contemporary contexts. This CFP is organized around the central problem identified by Skyer (2020): “What exists is an apparent paradox—the simultaneous importance and dearth of Vygotskian deaf education research” (p. 578). As such, the Special Issue has two purposes:
1) Analysis—To better understand the (historically unique) nature of Vygotsky’s original research on deaf education and psychology
2) Synthesis—To better understand contemporary concepts and issues in deaf research in light of Vygotsky’s contributions
Research Interests:
Abstract From a critical pedagogy standpoint, we examined a bilingual (American Sign Language [ASL] and English) video-publication titled "Seizing Academic Power." The video-publication explores interactions of power and knowledge in deaf... more
Abstract From a critical pedagogy standpoint, we examined a bilingual (American Sign Language [ASL] and English) video-publication titled "Seizing Academic Power." The video-publication explores interactions of power and knowledge in deaf education and research and proposes tools to subvert ableism and deficit ideologies within them. By centralizing multiple visuospatial modalities, the video-publication's medium is also its message. Qualitative data were produced and analyzed via structured coding cycles then interpreted through two theoretical frameworks focused on culture and aesthetics in critical pedagogy. Our analysis highlights conflicts at the nexus of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology of deaf education and research. Findings reveal how deaf students gain and develop critical consciousness within the classroom, depending on their teachers' conceptions of marginalized cultures, use of signed languages, and multimodal knowledge, all of which modulate power and ethics in deaf pedagogy and research about it. Our study concludes with implications for ASL video-publications for teacher-training in deaf higher education and in research production and dissemination.
Research Interests: Aesthetics, Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Higher Education, Critical Pedagogy, and 10 moreAbleism and Ability Studies, American Sign Language, Deaf Education, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Multimodality, American Sign Language-English bilingualism, Vlogs, deaf epistemology, deaf ontology, and deaf axiology
Keywords: Foucault, genealogy, Americans with Disabilities Act, power, epistemology Abstract: The Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA) of 1990 and 2008 are laws imagined as enacting two goals: enhancing civil rights and reducing... more
Keywords:
Foucault, genealogy, Americans with Disabilities Act, power, epistemology
Abstract:
The Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA) of 1990 and 2008 are laws imagined as enacting two goals: enhancing civil rights and reducing sociopolitical discrimination for Americans with disabilities; however, findings from this study strongly contrast with popular assumptions about the ADA. Key findings show how the ADA legitimizes governmental control of disability through discourse to consolidate economic power. The study employs the genealogical method, derived from Foucault, which is used to identify destructive and productive operations of power and identify ambiguities in discursive regimes. The ADA constructs a discursive category of "disability," the results of which are contradictory and problematic, evincing an asymmetrical power distribution between governmentality and people with disabilities. In the ADA, disabled people are conflated with abnormal bodies. The ADA's rhetorical construction of disability suggests that constructing a unified "disabled body" allows for individuals with disabilities to be defined and then controlled en masse. Events and rhetoric surrounding the ADA's passage illuminate how it regulates disabled individuals, described as untapped sources of economic potential. This genealogy uncovers findings indicating disturbing facts. For instance, the ADA articulates disabled bodies in service of capitalistic exploitation rather than human liberation. Similarly, the ADA generates a unique form of discursive hegemony that aims to control the bodies, minds, and perhaps the souls of Americans with disabilities.
Foucault, genealogy, Americans with Disabilities Act, power, epistemology
Abstract:
The Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA) of 1990 and 2008 are laws imagined as enacting two goals: enhancing civil rights and reducing sociopolitical discrimination for Americans with disabilities; however, findings from this study strongly contrast with popular assumptions about the ADA. Key findings show how the ADA legitimizes governmental control of disability through discourse to consolidate economic power. The study employs the genealogical method, derived from Foucault, which is used to identify destructive and productive operations of power and identify ambiguities in discursive regimes. The ADA constructs a discursive category of "disability," the results of which are contradictory and problematic, evincing an asymmetrical power distribution between governmentality and people with disabilities. In the ADA, disabled people are conflated with abnormal bodies. The ADA's rhetorical construction of disability suggests that constructing a unified "disabled body" allows for individuals with disabilities to be defined and then controlled en masse. Events and rhetoric surrounding the ADA's passage illuminate how it regulates disabled individuals, described as untapped sources of economic potential. This genealogy uncovers findings indicating disturbing facts. For instance, the ADA articulates disabled bodies in service of capitalistic exploitation rather than human liberation. Similarly, the ADA generates a unique form of discursive hegemony that aims to control the bodies, minds, and perhaps the souls of Americans with disabilities.
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... more
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.
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.
Research Interests:
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... more
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.
Research Interests:
This comprehensive exam begins with an assertion regarding the utility of visual communication in teaching deaf students. My assertion states that all deaf students benefit when educators privilege the visual in teaching practice and... more
This comprehensive exam begins with an assertion regarding the utility of visual communication in teaching deaf students. My assertion states that all deaf students benefit when educators privilege the visual in teaching practice and pedagogical communication. Privileging the visual in deaf pedagogy is not ideologically inert. Researchers in competing (and confluent) traditions of deaf research claim that: (a) vision (on the part of the student) and visual tools (on the part of educators) play an important role in deaf education, (b) deaf students’ sense and language ecologies are rooted in ontological and epistemological foundations distinct from nondeaf peers, and (c) these concerns are sites of ideological conflict and power differentials where deaf students interact with teachers and researchers.
Within this interdisciplinary problem space, I explore how knowledge regarding the visual is constructed in four paradigms of deaf education research and explain why the visual is a contested part of it. This comprehensive exam aims to illuminate the contested position of the visual in deaf pedagogical practice by exploring sources of conflict within four empirical paradigms as they pertain to classroom discourse (teaching and pedagogical practices). These exams synthesize the known literature on visual deaf pedagogical practices by subsuming classroom discourse in a framework of multimodal communications (Kress, 2010). This first exam asks: What empirical evidence emerges from the literature that describes the purposes and practices of visual teaching strategies for deaf learners? I address the question in two parts.
Part one of this exam is titled, “Modality, ideology, and deaf education,” which provides an overview of modality relative to deafness. This section describes some of the purposes and practices constitutive of visual communication used in deaf education related to the central axis of mode. I discuss how ideological formations of literacy present in deaf educational research have shaped two contrasting approaches to the issue of modality: a) language-based visual modes and b) communication-based visual modes. Part two is entitled, “Empiricism and the role of vision and sight in deaf research,” which defines four distinct approaches to empiricism that correspond to historical periods and academic disciplines pursuing deaf studies and deaf education research (referred to as deaf research). Each paradigm produces empirical knowledge (findings and interpretations) regarding the visual in deaf pedagogy differently. This knowledge is illustrated in a topology of deaf pedagogical discourse (a] language and b] communications) that shows connections between deaf ways of knowing and being with pedagogical adaptations configured on the sense of sight. Finally I discuss pivotal historical changes and compare and contrast the corpora of empirical evidence by discussing methodological consequences.
Within this interdisciplinary problem space, I explore how knowledge regarding the visual is constructed in four paradigms of deaf education research and explain why the visual is a contested part of it. This comprehensive exam aims to illuminate the contested position of the visual in deaf pedagogical practice by exploring sources of conflict within four empirical paradigms as they pertain to classroom discourse (teaching and pedagogical practices). These exams synthesize the known literature on visual deaf pedagogical practices by subsuming classroom discourse in a framework of multimodal communications (Kress, 2010). This first exam asks: What empirical evidence emerges from the literature that describes the purposes and practices of visual teaching strategies for deaf learners? I address the question in two parts.
Part one of this exam is titled, “Modality, ideology, and deaf education,” which provides an overview of modality relative to deafness. This section describes some of the purposes and practices constitutive of visual communication used in deaf education related to the central axis of mode. I discuss how ideological formations of literacy present in deaf educational research have shaped two contrasting approaches to the issue of modality: a) language-based visual modes and b) communication-based visual modes. Part two is entitled, “Empiricism and the role of vision and sight in deaf research,” which defines four distinct approaches to empiricism that correspond to historical periods and academic disciplines pursuing deaf studies and deaf education research (referred to as deaf research). Each paradigm produces empirical knowledge (findings and interpretations) regarding the visual in deaf pedagogy differently. This knowledge is illustrated in a topology of deaf pedagogical discourse (a] language and b] communications) that shows connections between deaf ways of knowing and being with pedagogical adaptations configured on the sense of sight. Finally I discuss pivotal historical changes and compare and contrast the corpora of empirical evidence by discussing methodological consequences.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Is deaf education in a state of crisis or a state of change? This presentation uses the idea of dialectics to establish and analyze six overarching trends facing deaf education today They are: 1. Sign languages, 2. Technologies, 3.... more
Is deaf education in a state of crisis or a state of change? This presentation uses the idea of dialectics to establish and analyze six overarching trends facing deaf education today They are: 1. Sign languages, 2. Technologies, 3. Teaching, 4. Learning. 5. Curriculum, and 6. Demographics.
Research Interests:
In this presentation, Dr. Skyer outlines five active strands of his research work including the following, which are synthesized within a locus of deaf education and its research traditions: 1) Vygotskian, 2) Critical Pedagogy, 3)... more
In this presentation, Dr. Skyer outlines five active strands of his research work including the following, which are synthesized within a locus of deaf education and its research traditions: 1) Vygotskian, 2) Critical Pedagogy, 3) Disability Studies, 4) Bioethics, and 5) Applied Aesthetics. Skyer outlines how axiology (ethics and aesthetics) configures all five strands, with a focus on how they affect the work of deaf education teachers and teacher preparation in deaf education. As measures of evidence, each strand features a mixture of Skyer's (single or first author) publications in journals and conference presentations. Each strand contains three prior research projects and one or two novel concepts for future study. In part two, Skyer describes a three-pronged hypothetical research agenda to be pursued at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, in the Deaf Studies subunit. The three prongs are: Deaf Curriculum Studies, research about Twice Exceptional Deaf Students, and Critical Arts Based Research Methods (Qualitative). Skyer introduces all three and elaborates on the first, suggesting potential research designs, questions, and methodological concerns. Skyer concludes with a summary of evidence of attained subvention, including active (funded) grants and pending applications. Potential future funding mechanisms are introduced, including initial and ongoing studies that could be funded by NIH (T32) NIDILRR, USDOE, HHS, or IES mechanisms. Skyer concludes by welcoming questions from those in attendance.
Research Interests:
Presentation title: "Optimistic Axiology: How Ethics and Aesthetics Configure Deaf Research and Deaf Pedagogy." Presentation abstract: In this presentation, Dr. Skyer outlines five active strands of his research work including the... more
Presentation title: "Optimistic Axiology: How Ethics and Aesthetics Configure Deaf Research and Deaf Pedagogy."
Presentation abstract: In this presentation, Dr. Skyer outlines five active strands of his research work including the following, which are synthesized within a locus of deaf education and its research traditions: 1) Vygotskian, 2) Critical Pedagogy, 3) Disability Studies, 4) Bioethics, and 5) Applied Aesthetics. Skyer outlines how axiology (ethics and aesthetics) configures all five strands, with a focus on how they affect the work of deaf education teachers and teacher preparation in deaf education. As measures of evidence, each strand features a mixture of Skyer's (single or first author) publications in journals and conference presentations. Each strand contains three prior research projects and one or two novel concepts for future study. In part two, Skyer describes a three-pronged hypothetical research agenda to be pursued at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, in the Deaf Studies subunit. The three prongs are: Deaf Curriculum Studies, research about Twice Exceptional Deaf Students, and Critical Arts Based Research Methods (Qualitative). Skyer introduces all three and elaborates on the first, suggesting potential research designs, questions, and methodological concerns. Skyer concludes with a summary of evidence of attained subvention, including active (funded) grants and pending applications. Potential future funding mechanisms are introduced, including initial and ongoing studies that could be funded by NIH (T32) NIDILRR, USDOE, HHS, or IES mechanisms. Skyer concludes by welcoming questions from those in attendance.
Biosketch: Dr. Michael E. Skyer is a teacher educator who, for the past seven years, has worked with deaf and nondeaf graduate students from around the country and the world, all of whom aspire to become future teachers of the deaf. Skyer's dissertation focused on grounded theories and case studies of visuality and multimodality in deaf pedagogies in higher education contexts. Prior to teacher education, Skyer taught writing at the undergraduate level for five years, and a mixture of public and residential (pK-12) deaf education settings, including the itinerant model, for three years. Skyer notes with amusement that he has taught the "LEGO age range," that is, his students are between the ages of 4 and 90, including pre-kindergarten children and inclusive of gerontological and community-based disability education. Skyer was recently featured in Scientific American for his insights into the digital contexts of deaf education concomitant with the COVID 19 pandemic.
Presentation abstract: In this presentation, Dr. Skyer outlines five active strands of his research work including the following, which are synthesized within a locus of deaf education and its research traditions: 1) Vygotskian, 2) Critical Pedagogy, 3) Disability Studies, 4) Bioethics, and 5) Applied Aesthetics. Skyer outlines how axiology (ethics and aesthetics) configures all five strands, with a focus on how they affect the work of deaf education teachers and teacher preparation in deaf education. As measures of evidence, each strand features a mixture of Skyer's (single or first author) publications in journals and conference presentations. Each strand contains three prior research projects and one or two novel concepts for future study. In part two, Skyer describes a three-pronged hypothetical research agenda to be pursued at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, in the Deaf Studies subunit. The three prongs are: Deaf Curriculum Studies, research about Twice Exceptional Deaf Students, and Critical Arts Based Research Methods (Qualitative). Skyer introduces all three and elaborates on the first, suggesting potential research designs, questions, and methodological concerns. Skyer concludes with a summary of evidence of attained subvention, including active (funded) grants and pending applications. Potential future funding mechanisms are introduced, including initial and ongoing studies that could be funded by NIH (T32) NIDILRR, USDOE, HHS, or IES mechanisms. Skyer concludes by welcoming questions from those in attendance.
Biosketch: Dr. Michael E. Skyer is a teacher educator who, for the past seven years, has worked with deaf and nondeaf graduate students from around the country and the world, all of whom aspire to become future teachers of the deaf. Skyer's dissertation focused on grounded theories and case studies of visuality and multimodality in deaf pedagogies in higher education contexts. Prior to teacher education, Skyer taught writing at the undergraduate level for five years, and a mixture of public and residential (pK-12) deaf education settings, including the itinerant model, for three years. Skyer notes with amusement that he has taught the "LEGO age range," that is, his students are between the ages of 4 and 90, including pre-kindergarten children and inclusive of gerontological and community-based disability education. Skyer was recently featured in Scientific American for his insights into the digital contexts of deaf education concomitant with the COVID 19 pandemic.
Research Interests:
Session Title: Capacitating Creativity via Deaf Writing Pedagogies Session Leader: Dr. Michael E. Skyer, PhD Time/Date: One Three-Hour Workshop Session, Nov 2nd, 12:30-3:30 Session Description: Deaf literacy research about writing is... more
Session Title: Capacitating Creativity via Deaf Writing Pedagogies
Session Leader: Dr. Michael E. Skyer, PhD
Time/Date: One Three-Hour Workshop Session, Nov 2nd, 12:30-3:30
Session Description: Deaf literacy research about writing is underdeveloped relative to research about deaf readers. In this session, Skyer presents a critical review of the available research on deaf writing pedagogies, including two arguments: one rejects the literature’s pessimism with respect to deaf writers and the other purports to capacitate creativity in deaf writing classrooms. The critical review is used as an impetus for case study and autoethnographic methodologies about writing critical deaf pedagogy. The session closes with an analytic discussion of practical suggestions for deaf writing classroom interactions. Audience interaction is encouraged and questions, discussion, and feedback are welcomed.
Session Leader: Dr. Michael E. Skyer, PhD
Time/Date: One Three-Hour Workshop Session, Nov 2nd, 12:30-3:30
Session Description: Deaf literacy research about writing is underdeveloped relative to research about deaf readers. In this session, Skyer presents a critical review of the available research on deaf writing pedagogies, including two arguments: one rejects the literature’s pessimism with respect to deaf writers and the other purports to capacitate creativity in deaf writing classrooms. The critical review is used as an impetus for case study and autoethnographic methodologies about writing critical deaf pedagogy. The session closes with an analytic discussion of practical suggestions for deaf writing classroom interactions. Audience interaction is encouraged and questions, discussion, and feedback are welcomed.
Research Interests:
Pupil ⇄ Pedagogue Michael E. Skyer (2021) I conducted a qualitative study about teaching deaf students to learn how and why deaf educators use visual discourses in their teaching. Across the lifespan, deaf learners are usually at an... more
Pupil ⇄ Pedagogue
Michael E. Skyer (2021)
I conducted a qualitative study about teaching deaf students to learn how and why deaf educators use visual discourses in their teaching. Across the lifespan, deaf learners are usually at an educational disadvantage because proportionately, there are few deaf students and because knowledge about deaf pedagogy is not widespread. There can be better or worse results when teachers and students interact in deaf education; I wanted to figure out how to make these interactions better and reduce problems where they occur. I found that an ethical approach to harm reduction in deaf education is to increase visual and multimodal interactions.
I identified six people who had the knowledge I needed. All of them are experienced deaf educators who are deaf themselves. I interviewed and observed them and analyzed products of educational interactions from their classrooms. This produced enormous data. I organized it using classifications and theories ranging in size. I found that as teachers increased visuality in teaching, they also increased other accessible discourses and become increasingly multimodal. Both outcomes are good because they enable beneficial, growth-oriented interactions that benefit deaf students and deaf faculty. My work is useful for teachers and researchers. For teachers, I provide concepts, tools, and methods that can be immediately put into practice to resolve practical problems or to invigorate pedagogical creativity. For researchers, I synthesized new directions for study and generated new visual and multimodal methods.
Problem: This dissertation confronts value conflicts in deaf education. Because deaf students comprise .17% of the population of US public schools (or 1.2% of all disabled students), they are often minoritized and harmed in deaf education. I wanted to address the lack of theory about visuality in deaf pedagogy because what is available is insufficient for teachers. To do so, I analyzed interactions between deaf faculty and students in contexts where visual discourses were located. I also investigated how deaf faculty think about, plan for, and reflect on teaching. I viewed these issues through the lens of axiology and focused on forces like development and power.
Process: I used two primary research designs. 1) Case Study focuses on particularities of local realties and 2) Grounded Theory creates knowledge that is potentially transferable into other settings. Together, these allowed me to describe and theorize deaf visual pedagogy. My sample is representative of the site and reflects the diversity of deaf populations. It is comprised of six experienced deaf educators across STEM and Humanities fields, all of whom are deaf. I used qualitative data collection and analysis methods borrowing from both research designs and created new methods where it was necessary or desirable. I used the literature and abductive reasoning to solve practical methodological problems.
Products: This three-year project generated extensive data and products intended for my primary audience: teachers of deaf students. The methodologically complex work should also assist my secondary audience: researchers of deaf education. Research outputs included:
A topology of four paradigms of deaf research, which contrasts among three established approaches to theory and synthesizes one new approach. This work was supported by:
a generative literature review, which legitimized the subjects under study, and
a methodological synthesis, which rationalized choices in the research design.
Six individual case study descriptions, one for each participant, which describe key aspects of each participants’ pedagogical theories and data about interactions of visual teaching and learning. These are supported by multimodal data. The cases include:
Sarah Jo – A Helper who focused on deaf critical literacy and the power of ASL.
Edward – A Lamplighter who focused on visual metacognition in the curriculum.
Astoria – A Change Agent who focused on sociopolitical activism and writing.
Louis – An Autodidact who focused on empirically valid multimodal pedagogy.
Howard – An Engager who focused on humanistic and accessible interactions.
Tessa Rose – A (Curious) Crow who focused on artistry and multimodal rhetoric.
Six taxonomies and compendia, each of which organize voluminous data into discernable and meaningful classifications that systematize data themes. These include:
(1) Three systems of interactions that align domains of philosophy with data.
(2) Sensory systems (3) and a corresponding compendium of modes that link perception and discourses.
(4) Classes and genres of visual tools that name and describe their variations.
(5) Discourses, divided and subdivided, to illustrate relationships between modes.
(6) Knowledge/reality interactions that synthesize, illustrate, and evaluate over 100 observed teaching and learning methods and outcomes in deaf education.
I also constructed two main theories that are supported by textual, visual, and multimodal data.
The theory of interactions describes the grain of analysis, whose categories include:
Agents as people who act independently and in relation to forces.
Subjects and processes as bodies of knowledge that are applied over time.
Modes and discourses as the forms and means of information exchange.
Objects as the material inputs and outputs of deaf education interactions.
Locations as the spaces (real, digital, or imagined) that interactions occur in. And,
Forces, which are attributes of capacity affecting causal or dynamic change.
The five grounded theories, which include:
Deaf umwelt in development – cooperative, creative work capacitates interactions.
Deaf gaze – space, time, and the body delimit and enable gaze interactions.
Deaf pedagogical adaptation – pedagogic aesthetics modulate and reify ethics.
Deaf pedagogies of multimodal transduction – MT changes knowledge and reality and enhances perceptual access in growth-oriented interactions.
Deaf Multimodal-Visual Pedagogies – DMVP is characterized by change and is comprised of forces and power flows. Deaf pedagogics use forces ethically by increasing visuality and multimodality; however, interactions need interpretation.
Conclusion:
I theorized the interactions between teachers, students, and mutually perceptible modes which are often visual in form. While I initially focused on the aesthetics of visuality my final analyses centers on the ethics of multimodality. Rather than theorize deaf pedagogy as a political problem, it should be analyzed as an ethical scenario in which aesthetics are a lever of power. Deaf educators who increase visuality and multimodality reduce harm and create beneficence.
Michael E. Skyer (2021)
I conducted a qualitative study about teaching deaf students to learn how and why deaf educators use visual discourses in their teaching. Across the lifespan, deaf learners are usually at an educational disadvantage because proportionately, there are few deaf students and because knowledge about deaf pedagogy is not widespread. There can be better or worse results when teachers and students interact in deaf education; I wanted to figure out how to make these interactions better and reduce problems where they occur. I found that an ethical approach to harm reduction in deaf education is to increase visual and multimodal interactions.
I identified six people who had the knowledge I needed. All of them are experienced deaf educators who are deaf themselves. I interviewed and observed them and analyzed products of educational interactions from their classrooms. This produced enormous data. I organized it using classifications and theories ranging in size. I found that as teachers increased visuality in teaching, they also increased other accessible discourses and become increasingly multimodal. Both outcomes are good because they enable beneficial, growth-oriented interactions that benefit deaf students and deaf faculty. My work is useful for teachers and researchers. For teachers, I provide concepts, tools, and methods that can be immediately put into practice to resolve practical problems or to invigorate pedagogical creativity. For researchers, I synthesized new directions for study and generated new visual and multimodal methods.
Problem: This dissertation confronts value conflicts in deaf education. Because deaf students comprise .17% of the population of US public schools (or 1.2% of all disabled students), they are often minoritized and harmed in deaf education. I wanted to address the lack of theory about visuality in deaf pedagogy because what is available is insufficient for teachers. To do so, I analyzed interactions between deaf faculty and students in contexts where visual discourses were located. I also investigated how deaf faculty think about, plan for, and reflect on teaching. I viewed these issues through the lens of axiology and focused on forces like development and power.
Process: I used two primary research designs. 1) Case Study focuses on particularities of local realties and 2) Grounded Theory creates knowledge that is potentially transferable into other settings. Together, these allowed me to describe and theorize deaf visual pedagogy. My sample is representative of the site and reflects the diversity of deaf populations. It is comprised of six experienced deaf educators across STEM and Humanities fields, all of whom are deaf. I used qualitative data collection and analysis methods borrowing from both research designs and created new methods where it was necessary or desirable. I used the literature and abductive reasoning to solve practical methodological problems.
Products: This three-year project generated extensive data and products intended for my primary audience: teachers of deaf students. The methodologically complex work should also assist my secondary audience: researchers of deaf education. Research outputs included:
A topology of four paradigms of deaf research, which contrasts among three established approaches to theory and synthesizes one new approach. This work was supported by:
a generative literature review, which legitimized the subjects under study, and
a methodological synthesis, which rationalized choices in the research design.
Six individual case study descriptions, one for each participant, which describe key aspects of each participants’ pedagogical theories and data about interactions of visual teaching and learning. These are supported by multimodal data. The cases include:
Sarah Jo – A Helper who focused on deaf critical literacy and the power of ASL.
Edward – A Lamplighter who focused on visual metacognition in the curriculum.
Astoria – A Change Agent who focused on sociopolitical activism and writing.
Louis – An Autodidact who focused on empirically valid multimodal pedagogy.
Howard – An Engager who focused on humanistic and accessible interactions.
Tessa Rose – A (Curious) Crow who focused on artistry and multimodal rhetoric.
Six taxonomies and compendia, each of which organize voluminous data into discernable and meaningful classifications that systematize data themes. These include:
(1) Three systems of interactions that align domains of philosophy with data.
(2) Sensory systems (3) and a corresponding compendium of modes that link perception and discourses.
(4) Classes and genres of visual tools that name and describe their variations.
(5) Discourses, divided and subdivided, to illustrate relationships between modes.
(6) Knowledge/reality interactions that synthesize, illustrate, and evaluate over 100 observed teaching and learning methods and outcomes in deaf education.
I also constructed two main theories that are supported by textual, visual, and multimodal data.
The theory of interactions describes the grain of analysis, whose categories include:
Agents as people who act independently and in relation to forces.
Subjects and processes as bodies of knowledge that are applied over time.
Modes and discourses as the forms and means of information exchange.
Objects as the material inputs and outputs of deaf education interactions.
Locations as the spaces (real, digital, or imagined) that interactions occur in. And,
Forces, which are attributes of capacity affecting causal or dynamic change.
The five grounded theories, which include:
Deaf umwelt in development – cooperative, creative work capacitates interactions.
Deaf gaze – space, time, and the body delimit and enable gaze interactions.
Deaf pedagogical adaptation – pedagogic aesthetics modulate and reify ethics.
Deaf pedagogies of multimodal transduction – MT changes knowledge and reality and enhances perceptual access in growth-oriented interactions.
Deaf Multimodal-Visual Pedagogies – DMVP is characterized by change and is comprised of forces and power flows. Deaf pedagogics use forces ethically by increasing visuality and multimodality; however, interactions need interpretation.
Conclusion:
I theorized the interactions between teachers, students, and mutually perceptible modes which are often visual in form. While I initially focused on the aesthetics of visuality my final analyses centers on the ethics of multimodality. Rather than theorize deaf pedagogy as a political problem, it should be analyzed as an ethical scenario in which aesthetics are a lever of power. Deaf educators who increase visuality and multimodality reduce harm and create beneficence.
Research Interests:
Three approaches to integrating arts-based deaf education are explored and analyzed using a "DeafCrit" theoretical framework.
*Note, there is an error on our references slide. Gertz (1993) should read Gertz (2003).
*Note, there is an error on our references slide. Gertz (1993) should read Gertz (2003).
Research Interests:
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,... more
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.
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.
Research Interests:
This Invited Lecture (April 7th, 2020) is by Michael E. Skyer , PhD Candidate (UR), Senior Lecturer (RIT). It was hosted via Zoom for the University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry at the behest of Dr. Monica Javidnia, for... more
This Invited Lecture (April 7th, 2020) is by Michael E. Skyer , PhD Candidate (UR), Senior Lecturer (RIT). It was hosted via Zoom for the University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry at the behest of Dr. Monica Javidnia, for the Workshop in Scientific Communication (IND 417). The first half of the lecture discusses three extant models of science development (progress-Bryson, revolutions-Kuhn, and social ecology-Bookchin), and synthesizes a fourth (conflict-Ziarek, Ranciere, Skyer), based on the concept of dissensus. The second half of the lecture examines the philosophical foundations of science in deaf research by reviewing a topography of four paradigms of research and examining the contiguous system of: axiology, ontology, epistemology, and methodology in deaf research and disability studies. Critical questions are also posed and discussed .
Research Interests:
Deaf Gain theory is a significant advancement in deaf research and deaf education. This presentation synthesizes main principles of deaf gain and situates the theory in deaf education research methodologies and pedagogical methods for... more
Deaf Gain theory is a significant advancement in deaf research and deaf education. This presentation synthesizes main principles of deaf gain and situates the theory in deaf education research methodologies and pedagogical methods for deaf education. A case study is presented, analyzed, and linked to pedagogical praxis leveraging deaf gains in education.
Research Interests:
Illuminated by clip-on lamp, I read Sara Nović’s True Biz during the COVID pandemic, hiding beneath a blanket and wearing a KN-95 mask, while my pregnant wife slept next to me in a hospital bed preparing for the immanent birth of our... more
Illuminated by clip-on lamp, I read Sara Nović’s True Biz during the COVID pandemic, hiding beneath a blanket and wearing a KN-95 mask, while my pregnant wife slept next to me in a hospital bed preparing for the immanent birth of our son.
This introduction aims to contextualize two of Nović’s novels and introduce two book reviews about True Biz, which intentionally juxtapose positionalities, including author, reader, and reviewer. To my knowledge, this is the first time novels have been reviewed in the American Annals of the Deaf; however, uplifting deaf literature should be uncontroversial. True Biz is a fiction book about a deaf school slated to close, the students who learn there, and the teachers who work there. It’s written by Nović, an American-born queer deaf woman who was post-lingually deafened and raised in the mainstream, and who embraced ASL as a teenager. Nović divides her time between the US and Croatia (Nović & Glass, 2016).
Including myself, all three reviewers (and Nović herself) are White, Mainstream-educated deaf people with competencies in English. Two of us are also fluent in American Sign Language (ASL). As a primary language. The first is written by an elder, “oral deaf” woman, Deborah Wolter (p. 7). Wolter analyzes and evaluates the realism of the novel’s depictions of life, language, and identity in deaf schools. Wolter’s judgements are based on years of experience as a writer and literacy consultant. The second review is written by a younger, deaf queer person and PhD student, Leah Norris. Norris has taught youngsters and adults in deaf and disabled education settings. Her review theorizes True Biz’s place in deaf literature and advances claims about authenticity and representation.
As both reviewers and I contend, True Biz contains multitudes. The book had jarring resonances with my experiences about birth and death, deaf elder care, the immanent closure of a residential school, neurodegeneration, and life after deafness.
True Biz is transcendent, novel, and mundane.
Nović soars when she refuses to equivocate on political and ethical issues that count. Her characters intersperse their narratives with primers on ASL and Deaf Culture. In one good example, Kayla, the only Black deaf character, historicizes Black ASL and describes Black Deaf Gain (p. 194, p. 268) (for more see: Moges-Reidel, 2020). In another instance, newly radicalized deaf teenage anarchist Charlie tells us: “Deaf people need direct action.” (p. 377, italics original). Elsewhere, the school’s superintendent February reflects on Charlie’s language deprivation: “All those years of energy poured into achieving the aesthetic of being educated rather than actually having learned anything.” (p. 19). I am especially partial to Nović’s pithy definition of hearing privilege: “[To] conflate majority with superiority.” (p. 288).
True Biz creatively situates nonfiction vignettes amid fictional narration, including asides on the history of anarchism, Deaf President Now! and an ASL crash-course on human sexuality (See: Figure 1). I approached True Biz through a deaf education lens with familiarity in cultural studies. My research surfaces deaf pedagogical praxis as related to social inequities. This confluence of ideas, (e.g., deaf-positive curriculum studies), is seldom represented in deaf literature and nowhere outside it. Because of these gaps, it was heartening to see plot points about February developing a Deaf Studies Curriculum. While ostensibly serving as signposts for novices to deaf spaces, these include classroom-facing prompts, such as: “What are the medical community’s ethical obligations [to preserve] human diversity?” (p. 207). I interpreted these nonfiction interludes as metatextual representations of the curriculum February intends to unveil in her Deaf Studies class at the school—if only she can prevent its closure.
Figure 1: © Brittany Castle (Illustrator). (True Biz, Nović, 2022, p. 133)
Nović’s deaf academia refreshingly depicts youth and adults in deaf education as normal. For example, February “repressed her anxiety…by maintaining a workload so large she had little time to worry about anything else” (p. 157). This sentence slapped me with verisimilitude. It is good that the young deaf characters are banal and their struggles routine. None of them boast superpowers to compensate for their deafness or CIs that confer cybernetic abilities. These “Gen Z” deaf students fight with their lovers over texts. They vaguely contend with racism and audism, while running away from some of their problems and careening headlong into others. Like the deaf teens I’ve taught, they get bored in school. Outside classrooms, they destroy their hearing devices, swear, drink, take street drugs, and get caught in the occasional mosh pit. Infrequently, they plan terrorist events.
Considering everything, True Biz is worth reading. It’s a topical departure that shares deep themes with Nović’s breakout success, Girl at War (2016). Girl at War is overtly about political mechanisms: socialism in decay, rising fascism, and violent civil war. Both novels contain plots with lost girls with punk rock ethics, vomiting protagonists, queer love triangles, and motherless, fatherless children left adrift. Girl at War and True Biz share thematic similarities, which appear as Nović’s leitmotifs: the unmappability of divided cultures, the incandescence of adolescent anti-establishmentarianism, the need to redress profound cultural dislocation, and the hybridity and fallibility of language.
My preference for Girl at War over True Biz is that the former is like iridescent poetry where the latter retains roughness, vacillating from fiction to nonfiction. Girl at War was captivating, its world completely new and eye-opening. Finishing Girl at War left me intrigued but satisfied. In contrast, while True Biz was comforting, it was too familiar. It left me wanting much more than the novel had to give. Summing up both books, two characters in Girl at War code-switch and translanguage in Croatian and English to have this exchange:
[Luka]: “You can’t get culture shock from your own culture.”
[Ana]: “You can.”
At the point at which I read True Biz Ana’s retort was prescient. It is worth examining in greater detail the dissonances and harmonics that resonate when deaf worlds collide. To that end, I turn you to Wolter’s “The True Business about Schools for the Deaf” and Norris’ “Deaf Literature,” and invite you to join us as we peel open our deaf ears to listen with our eyes.
References:
Moges, R.T. (2020). “From White Deaf people’s adversity to Black Deaf Gain”: A proposal for a new lens of Black Deaf educational history. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity. 6,(1) 69-99.
Nović, S. (2022). True biz. Random House.
Nović, S. & Glass, J. (2016). A conversation between Sara Nović and Julia Glass. In Girl at War: A Reader’s Guide. Girl at war. Random House.
Nović, S. (2016). Girl at war. Random House
This introduction aims to contextualize two of Nović’s novels and introduce two book reviews about True Biz, which intentionally juxtapose positionalities, including author, reader, and reviewer. To my knowledge, this is the first time novels have been reviewed in the American Annals of the Deaf; however, uplifting deaf literature should be uncontroversial. True Biz is a fiction book about a deaf school slated to close, the students who learn there, and the teachers who work there. It’s written by Nović, an American-born queer deaf woman who was post-lingually deafened and raised in the mainstream, and who embraced ASL as a teenager. Nović divides her time between the US and Croatia (Nović & Glass, 2016).
Including myself, all three reviewers (and Nović herself) are White, Mainstream-educated deaf people with competencies in English. Two of us are also fluent in American Sign Language (ASL). As a primary language. The first is written by an elder, “oral deaf” woman, Deborah Wolter (p. 7). Wolter analyzes and evaluates the realism of the novel’s depictions of life, language, and identity in deaf schools. Wolter’s judgements are based on years of experience as a writer and literacy consultant. The second review is written by a younger, deaf queer person and PhD student, Leah Norris. Norris has taught youngsters and adults in deaf and disabled education settings. Her review theorizes True Biz’s place in deaf literature and advances claims about authenticity and representation.
As both reviewers and I contend, True Biz contains multitudes. The book had jarring resonances with my experiences about birth and death, deaf elder care, the immanent closure of a residential school, neurodegeneration, and life after deafness.
True Biz is transcendent, novel, and mundane.
Nović soars when she refuses to equivocate on political and ethical issues that count. Her characters intersperse their narratives with primers on ASL and Deaf Culture. In one good example, Kayla, the only Black deaf character, historicizes Black ASL and describes Black Deaf Gain (p. 194, p. 268) (for more see: Moges-Reidel, 2020). In another instance, newly radicalized deaf teenage anarchist Charlie tells us: “Deaf people need direct action.” (p. 377, italics original). Elsewhere, the school’s superintendent February reflects on Charlie’s language deprivation: “All those years of energy poured into achieving the aesthetic of being educated rather than actually having learned anything.” (p. 19). I am especially partial to Nović’s pithy definition of hearing privilege: “[To] conflate majority with superiority.” (p. 288).
True Biz creatively situates nonfiction vignettes amid fictional narration, including asides on the history of anarchism, Deaf President Now! and an ASL crash-course on human sexuality (See: Figure 1). I approached True Biz through a deaf education lens with familiarity in cultural studies. My research surfaces deaf pedagogical praxis as related to social inequities. This confluence of ideas, (e.g., deaf-positive curriculum studies), is seldom represented in deaf literature and nowhere outside it. Because of these gaps, it was heartening to see plot points about February developing a Deaf Studies Curriculum. While ostensibly serving as signposts for novices to deaf spaces, these include classroom-facing prompts, such as: “What are the medical community’s ethical obligations [to preserve] human diversity?” (p. 207). I interpreted these nonfiction interludes as metatextual representations of the curriculum February intends to unveil in her Deaf Studies class at the school—if only she can prevent its closure.
Figure 1: © Brittany Castle (Illustrator). (True Biz, Nović, 2022, p. 133)
Nović’s deaf academia refreshingly depicts youth and adults in deaf education as normal. For example, February “repressed her anxiety…by maintaining a workload so large she had little time to worry about anything else” (p. 157). This sentence slapped me with verisimilitude. It is good that the young deaf characters are banal and their struggles routine. None of them boast superpowers to compensate for their deafness or CIs that confer cybernetic abilities. These “Gen Z” deaf students fight with their lovers over texts. They vaguely contend with racism and audism, while running away from some of their problems and careening headlong into others. Like the deaf teens I’ve taught, they get bored in school. Outside classrooms, they destroy their hearing devices, swear, drink, take street drugs, and get caught in the occasional mosh pit. Infrequently, they plan terrorist events.
Considering everything, True Biz is worth reading. It’s a topical departure that shares deep themes with Nović’s breakout success, Girl at War (2016). Girl at War is overtly about political mechanisms: socialism in decay, rising fascism, and violent civil war. Both novels contain plots with lost girls with punk rock ethics, vomiting protagonists, queer love triangles, and motherless, fatherless children left adrift. Girl at War and True Biz share thematic similarities, which appear as Nović’s leitmotifs: the unmappability of divided cultures, the incandescence of adolescent anti-establishmentarianism, the need to redress profound cultural dislocation, and the hybridity and fallibility of language.
My preference for Girl at War over True Biz is that the former is like iridescent poetry where the latter retains roughness, vacillating from fiction to nonfiction. Girl at War was captivating, its world completely new and eye-opening. Finishing Girl at War left me intrigued but satisfied. In contrast, while True Biz was comforting, it was too familiar. It left me wanting much more than the novel had to give. Summing up both books, two characters in Girl at War code-switch and translanguage in Croatian and English to have this exchange:
[Luka]: “You can’t get culture shock from your own culture.”
[Ana]: “You can.”
At the point at which I read True Biz Ana’s retort was prescient. It is worth examining in greater detail the dissonances and harmonics that resonate when deaf worlds collide. To that end, I turn you to Wolter’s “The True Business about Schools for the Deaf” and Norris’ “Deaf Literature,” and invite you to join us as we peel open our deaf ears to listen with our eyes.
References:
Moges, R.T. (2020). “From White Deaf people’s adversity to Black Deaf Gain”: A proposal for a new lens of Black Deaf educational history. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity. 6,(1) 69-99.
Nović, S. (2022). True biz. Random House.
Nović, S. & Glass, J. (2016). A conversation between Sara Nović and Julia Glass. In Girl at War: A Reader’s Guide. Girl at war. Random House.
Nović, S. (2016). Girl at war. Random House
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
During an evening lull at the Association of College Educators – Deaf and Hard of Hearing conference, I walked to the shore. Chicago lay behind me, glittering in swank neon. Lake Michigan yawned in front where bare lights limned icy black... more
During an evening lull at the Association of College Educators – Deaf and Hard of Hearing conference, I walked to the shore. Chicago lay behind me, glittering in swank neon. Lake Michigan yawned in front where bare lights limned icy black water. Intuition links this imagery to the book under my arm: Glickman and Hall’s (2019) Language Deprivation and Deaf Mental Health. In it, the light of language is contrasted with an abyss without; to paraphrase Sartre, being or nothingness. This imagery skims the surface of Language Deprivation Syndrome’s (LDS) complexity. To understand this vexing issue in depth, the editors assemble experts who aim to construct an initial clinical description. Psychologists, linguists, interpreters, and program directors are joined by a historian, a lawyer, and a psychiatrist; in spite of interdisciplinarity, themes readily emerge.
LDS is a biosocial concatenation; social in etiology and bodily inscribed in maladapted neurology. LDS has diverse, idiosyncratic manifestations. It disenfranchises deaf people. Deafness and LDS overlap but are not identical. While deaf LDS is far too common, it is also preventable. LDS exists on a spectrum: Language deficits (mild) are common. Atypical language development or dysfluency (moderate) is overrepresented in deaf populations. Finally, some deaf adults are functionally alingual (severe). Absent language, these individuals lead a “dysphoric mode of existence” (Gulati, p. 36). Those affected incur unique experiential trajectories. They may undergo trauma, have comorbid disabilities, or knowledge gaps. LDS is contrasted with speech-and-language disorders, learning and intellectual disabilities, autism, aphasia, and surdophrenia. LDS often erodes deaf mental health, and mental illness is worsened by it.
For clinicians, the book is successful. It is exactingly described, richly illustrated, and rife with heart-rending examples, often set in jails, courtrooms, and institutions. Using positivist epistemology, the authors diagnose the pathology of LDS, empirically measure its outward effects, and suggest means to assuage its gravest aspects. The most impactful work characterizes LDS’ boundary-transgressing complexity and acknowledges its infuriating injustice. Here, LDS is created by inequities of socioeconomics, ineffectual governance, unethical
biases against sign languages, and bioeconomic exploitation by industry. These writers locate the problem in the system, not in the child. Insofar as the book is taken as a starting point, it is successful; however, the book’s critical shortcoming is that it does not go far enough to deracinate LDS via education.
As a critical deaf pedagogue, I am an interloper here. While the book is not explicitly for deaf educators, they are certainly in its target audience and, like clinicians, intimately involved in deaf language development. It is problematic that educators’ contributions are underrepresented. As a result, the text lacks both, a cogent theoretical framework for pedagogy and evidence- based practices linked to achievable scholastic progress. Deaf pedagogy researchers may use the text as a stepping stone to segue from LDS to research on deaf visuality, bilingualism, translanguaging, and multimodality—educational themes that appear without integration. To this end, future studies may ask: How does LDS shape cognitive development? What role does socioemotional dysregulation play in scholastic develop- ment? What teaching methods reduce the harm done to deaf LDS children? What strategies exist for Individualized Education Plans?
Glickman and Hall comprehensively describe LDS as a problem. However, doing so underscores a regrettable theme— LDS scholarship is reaction—damage control. LDS thrives in the absence of education. Via concerted efforts, educators along with researchers, ethicists, and activists should build on this important work to construct strategies that eradicate the present epidemic’s sources and prevent future cases. Deaf educators are essential to this work. Building on Pollard’s (p. 121-1) imaginative analogy, LDS is a radical evolutionary divergence. Conceptualizing life without language is like envisioning life without carbon, or absent gravity. From this standpoint, the most dynamic explorations of this emergent field are yet to come.
Michael E. Skyer Senior Lecturer National Technical Institute for the Deaf
LDS is a biosocial concatenation; social in etiology and bodily inscribed in maladapted neurology. LDS has diverse, idiosyncratic manifestations. It disenfranchises deaf people. Deafness and LDS overlap but are not identical. While deaf LDS is far too common, it is also preventable. LDS exists on a spectrum: Language deficits (mild) are common. Atypical language development or dysfluency (moderate) is overrepresented in deaf populations. Finally, some deaf adults are functionally alingual (severe). Absent language, these individuals lead a “dysphoric mode of existence” (Gulati, p. 36). Those affected incur unique experiential trajectories. They may undergo trauma, have comorbid disabilities, or knowledge gaps. LDS is contrasted with speech-and-language disorders, learning and intellectual disabilities, autism, aphasia, and surdophrenia. LDS often erodes deaf mental health, and mental illness is worsened by it.
For clinicians, the book is successful. It is exactingly described, richly illustrated, and rife with heart-rending examples, often set in jails, courtrooms, and institutions. Using positivist epistemology, the authors diagnose the pathology of LDS, empirically measure its outward effects, and suggest means to assuage its gravest aspects. The most impactful work characterizes LDS’ boundary-transgressing complexity and acknowledges its infuriating injustice. Here, LDS is created by inequities of socioeconomics, ineffectual governance, unethical
biases against sign languages, and bioeconomic exploitation by industry. These writers locate the problem in the system, not in the child. Insofar as the book is taken as a starting point, it is successful; however, the book’s critical shortcoming is that it does not go far enough to deracinate LDS via education.
As a critical deaf pedagogue, I am an interloper here. While the book is not explicitly for deaf educators, they are certainly in its target audience and, like clinicians, intimately involved in deaf language development. It is problematic that educators’ contributions are underrepresented. As a result, the text lacks both, a cogent theoretical framework for pedagogy and evidence- based practices linked to achievable scholastic progress. Deaf pedagogy researchers may use the text as a stepping stone to segue from LDS to research on deaf visuality, bilingualism, translanguaging, and multimodality—educational themes that appear without integration. To this end, future studies may ask: How does LDS shape cognitive development? What role does socioemotional dysregulation play in scholastic develop- ment? What teaching methods reduce the harm done to deaf LDS children? What strategies exist for Individualized Education Plans?
Glickman and Hall comprehensively describe LDS as a problem. However, doing so underscores a regrettable theme— LDS scholarship is reaction—damage control. LDS thrives in the absence of education. Via concerted efforts, educators along with researchers, ethicists, and activists should build on this important work to construct strategies that eradicate the present epidemic’s sources and prevent future cases. Deaf educators are essential to this work. Building on Pollard’s (p. 121-1) imaginative analogy, LDS is a radical evolutionary divergence. Conceptualizing life without language is like envisioning life without carbon, or absent gravity. From this standpoint, the most dynamic explorations of this emergent field are yet to come.
Michael E. Skyer Senior Lecturer National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Research Interests:
Bauman and Murray’s text Deaf Gain is an ideological inversion that invites readers to explore the variegated experiences of diverse, globalized deaf populations. They invite their audience to see its dynamic ecology with deaf eyes wide... more
Bauman and Murray’s text Deaf Gain is an ideological inversion that invites readers to explore the variegated experiences of diverse, globalized deaf populations. They invite their audience to see its dynamic ecology with deaf eyes wide open and remind us that deafness is a part of, not apart from humanity.
Research Interests:
Young and Temple’s compact volume describes the historical conditions that led to the present status of deaf studies research. Having designed Approaches to Social Research as a critical introduction to qualitative and quantitative deaf... more
Young and Temple’s compact volume describes the historical conditions that led to the present status of deaf studies research. Having designed Approaches to Social Research as a critical introduction to qualitative and quantitative deaf social research, the authors generate clusters of theoretical domains, establish the broad contours of practice, and offer an invigorat- ing analysis of social research involving deaf people. These are the book’s virtues: the concision of its arguments and its exactingly delimited scope. In time, these assets will manifest themselves as enormously useful signposts, or directional markers, for a range of scholars navigating divergent purposes. Like those of any good map, the book’s features are amenable to different uses. The text assists specialist
researchers who wish to locate prescient arguments. For novices, it points the way to both canonical and secondary materials. Elsewhere, abridged arguments (“Concluding Thoughts”) offer nuggets of wisdom. These are proffered to those pressed for time, like graduate students, or those con- ducting literature reviews, who are often overwhelmed by meandering arguments and confusing terms. The authors, like mapmakers of yore, also post signs warn- ing “Here be dragons!” that demarcate the stickiest of ethical dilemmas. While few firm recommendations for practice emerge, the authors’ chief contribution is to organize and interrelate lines of contemporary thought. The stated purpose of the book is to spark vigorous debate about deaf social research for novices and experienced readers alike. In this aim, the authors blaze the trail. It is incumbent upon us to follow.
researchers who wish to locate prescient arguments. For novices, it points the way to both canonical and secondary materials. Elsewhere, abridged arguments (“Concluding Thoughts”) offer nuggets of wisdom. These are proffered to those pressed for time, like graduate students, or those con- ducting literature reviews, who are often overwhelmed by meandering arguments and confusing terms. The authors, like mapmakers of yore, also post signs warn- ing “Here be dragons!” that demarcate the stickiest of ethical dilemmas. While few firm recommendations for practice emerge, the authors’ chief contribution is to organize and interrelate lines of contemporary thought. The stated purpose of the book is to spark vigorous debate about deaf social research for novices and experienced readers alike. In this aim, the authors blaze the trail. It is incumbent upon us to follow.
Research Interests:
EDDE 425 critically overviews trends, issues, demographics, and social justice-oriented practices in deaf education. Analysis focuses on the historical, legal, biological, and social contexts that impact the linguistic, educational, and... more
EDDE 425 critically overviews trends, issues, demographics, and social justice-oriented practices in deaf education. Analysis focuses on the historical, legal, biological, and social contexts that impact the linguistic, educational, and psychological development of deaf students from diverse backgrounds. Course topics include: bi/multilingual teaching and learning, and issues of social in/equality as related to power, politics, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, dis/ability, and other categories of difference.
Research Interests:
Diversity is elusive and omnipresent; at once easy and impossible to define. The design of this curriculum will expose you to a research corpus that explores interdependent relationships between multiple components of diversity in... more
Diversity is elusive and omnipresent; at once easy and impossible to define. The design of this curriculum will expose you to a research corpus that explores interdependent relationships between multiple components of diversity in education and examine how ethical decisions are made for and with increasingly complex and environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf diversity; and (2) to apply research-supported teaching practices that respond to deaf diversity.
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, analyzing, and applying 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 specific theme of ethics and conflict overarches the course, extant in various forms across all sites of educational and cultural diversity. The broad themes for this course are: applying theory about diversity in teaching and in the curriculum.
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, analyzing, and applying 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 specific theme of ethics and conflict overarches the course, extant in various forms across all sites of educational and cultural diversity. The broad themes for this course are: applying theory about diversity in teaching and in the curriculum.
Research Interests:
Psychological development is the outcome of biosocial interactions in deaf education (Skyer, 2021). The design of this curriculum will expose you to a research corpus that focuses the extreme diversity of research related to deaf... more
Psychological development is the outcome of biosocial interactions in deaf education (Skyer, 2021). The design of this curriculum will expose you to a research corpus that focuses the extreme diversity of research related to deaf psychology and deaf human development. The course will elucidate two main goals: (1) how to understand the factors that enable and inhibit positive deaf developmental trajectories in education and civic life, and (2) how to apply research-supported teaching practices and develop effective pedagogic repertoires that foster healthy deaf development via biosocial interactions.
Owning in part to the profusion of psychological research (with or without deaf people), this course takes a somewhat narrow view and only explores research that directly links human development with observable or manipulable phenomena, including the body, the physical environment of the classroom, and teaching methods that are comprehensible for deaf people. As such, the specific themes we will explore are: exploring and applying theories of developmental play and human (biosocial) bodies which overarch the themes shown in the textbooks and other course readings.
Owning in part to the profusion of psychological research (with or without deaf people), this course takes a somewhat narrow view and only explores research that directly links human development with observable or manipulable phenomena, including the body, the physical environment of the classroom, and teaching methods that are comprehensible for deaf people. As such, the specific themes we will explore are: exploring and applying theories of developmental play and human (biosocial) bodies which overarch the themes shown in the textbooks and other course readings.
Research Interests:
Research is at once technical and transformative; political and personal. Conducting good research, like good teaching, involves a cyclical process called praxis, where theory, action, and reflection affect positive changes (Freire,... more
Research is at once technical and transformative; political and personal. Conducting good research, like good teaching, involves a cyclical process called praxis, where theory, action, and reflection affect positive changes (Freire, 1970/2007). Historical time periods, research paradigms, and methodologies all coevolve—this course surveys multiple approaches to research on deaf education as the discipline changes in the 21st Century. The class exposes you to a diverse research corpus that explores interdependent relationships between quality teaching and ethical research. The class has two purposes. First, to help you understand and unpack the complex issues of contemporary deaf research; and second, to prepare you for conducting action research projects in your own classrooms. Together, they will assist you becoming an evidence- based educator. We will come to understand how context and positionality affect research design, data collection/interpretation, and ethical inquiry in deaf education research. The course design provides abundant opportunities for actively studying critical moments of change that have profoundly shaped deaf education research in local and global contexts. Considerable effort has been made to select textbooks and other contemporary readings that view deafness positively, including philosophical subjects like ethics and deaf epistemology. The broad theme for this course is: understanding research praxis.
Research Interests:
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise.... more
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise. This class will expose you to a corpus of research regarding the thought-processes, practices, and values of special educators, disability scholars, and researchers. While some readings focus on deafness, the majority do not. All readings examine disability, though some focus on impairments and others on exceptionalities. One concept of focus for this course is the subject of poverty, which traverses all listed domains of disability.
Diversity and change also connecting themes throughout all materials. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research
Diversity and change also connecting themes throughout all materials. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research
Research Interests:
“Impairment is the rule, and normalcy is the fantasy...We are all nonstandard.” – Lennard J. Davis, The End of Identity Politics (2013a). “There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that... more
“Impairment is the rule, and normalcy is the fantasy...We are all nonstandard.” – Lennard J. Davis, The End of Identity Politics (2013a).
“There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that peoples could be profoundly different, yet all be valuable and equal to one another; an increasing sense that the deaf were a ‘people,’ and not merely a number of isolated, abnormal, disabled individuals; a movement from the medical or pathological view to an anthropological, sociological, or ethnic view … [Depathologizing led the world to become] more aware of the previously invisible and inaudible deaf; they too became more aware of themselves, of their increasing visibility and power in society.” – Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices (1990/2008)
1. MSSE COURSE DESCRIPTION, GOALS, & ARTICULATION
DESCRIPTION/OVERVIEW:
This course assists early-career educators examine special education and disability with a variety of lenses. The course overviews the changing roles of service professionals like teachers and medical teams who serve people with disabilities. The course design addresses historical and contemporary, and domestic and global issues affecting people with disabilities.* These issues influence how disabled people are positioned within educational, legal, medical, and social institutions. By drawing from various perspectives (e.g. theoretical, philosophical, and methodological), the course encourages students to ask critical questions. For instance, how is disability configured in schools with respect to the body, family, language, culture, society, politics, policy, economics, and technology?
The course achieves these aims by opportunities that analyze the practical and conceptual consequences of four models of disability: (1) philological, (2) biomedical, (3) sociocultural, and (4) biosocial. For instance, the biosocial vantage surveys ecological relationships among domains of power that shape deaf education in contemporary society. Course foci include—how theory, models, and services change; how changes affect institutions and people; how changing views on disability effect students with disabilities; and what consequences are inherent or ascribed to dis/ability within diverse contexts, including schools and societies.
GOALS/STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO:
Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to (SWBAT): (1) Identify and describe different theoretical models of disability, apply the models toward an understanding of historical and contemporary issues, within domestic and global contexts. (2) Employ theory and evidence to explain how people with disabilities are identified, labeled, and served in special education settings. (3) Analyze how special education services and training for professionals have changed by articulating how social systems and human ecological structures contribute to the evolution of teacher preparation and professional training. (4) Articulate how those closest to people with disabilities (particularly the family constellation, special educators, and medical professionals) experience, interpret, understand, and respond to disability in schools.
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 special educators. (2) Assist teacher-candidates in becoming self-reflective deaf educators who are lifelong learners. (3) Synthesize evidence-based practices, sociological research, and special education practices in preparation for student teaching and early-career teaching. (4) Develop an educational 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:
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise. This class will expose you to a corpus of research regarding the thought-processes, practices, and values of special educators, disability scholars, and researchers. While some readings focus on deafness, the majority do not. All readings examine disability, though some focus on impairments and others on exceptionalities. One area of focus for this course is the subject of poverty, which traverses all listed domains of disability.
Diversity and change also connecting themes throughout all materials. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research
“There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that peoples could be profoundly different, yet all be valuable and equal to one another; an increasing sense that the deaf were a ‘people,’ and not merely a number of isolated, abnormal, disabled individuals; a movement from the medical or pathological view to an anthropological, sociological, or ethnic view … [Depathologizing led the world to become] more aware of the previously invisible and inaudible deaf; they too became more aware of themselves, of their increasing visibility and power in society.” – Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices (1990/2008)
1. MSSE COURSE DESCRIPTION, GOALS, & ARTICULATION
DESCRIPTION/OVERVIEW:
This course assists early-career educators examine special education and disability with a variety of lenses. The course overviews the changing roles of service professionals like teachers and medical teams who serve people with disabilities. The course design addresses historical and contemporary, and domestic and global issues affecting people with disabilities.* These issues influence how disabled people are positioned within educational, legal, medical, and social institutions. By drawing from various perspectives (e.g. theoretical, philosophical, and methodological), the course encourages students to ask critical questions. For instance, how is disability configured in schools with respect to the body, family, language, culture, society, politics, policy, economics, and technology?
The course achieves these aims by opportunities that analyze the practical and conceptual consequences of four models of disability: (1) philological, (2) biomedical, (3) sociocultural, and (4) biosocial. For instance, the biosocial vantage surveys ecological relationships among domains of power that shape deaf education in contemporary society. Course foci include—how theory, models, and services change; how changes affect institutions and people; how changing views on disability effect students with disabilities; and what consequences are inherent or ascribed to dis/ability within diverse contexts, including schools and societies.
GOALS/STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO:
Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to (SWBAT): (1) Identify and describe different theoretical models of disability, apply the models toward an understanding of historical and contemporary issues, within domestic and global contexts. (2) Employ theory and evidence to explain how people with disabilities are identified, labeled, and served in special education settings. (3) Analyze how special education services and training for professionals have changed by articulating how social systems and human ecological structures contribute to the evolution of teacher preparation and professional training. (4) Articulate how those closest to people with disabilities (particularly the family constellation, special educators, and medical professionals) experience, interpret, understand, and respond to disability in schools.
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 special educators. (2) Assist teacher-candidates in becoming self-reflective deaf educators who are lifelong learners. (3) Synthesize evidence-based practices, sociological research, and special education practices in preparation for student teaching and early-career teaching. (4) Develop an educational 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:
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise. This class will expose you to a corpus of research regarding the thought-processes, practices, and values of special educators, disability scholars, and researchers. While some readings focus on deafness, the majority do not. All readings examine disability, though some focus on impairments and others on exceptionalities. One area of focus for this course is the subject of poverty, which traverses all listed domains of disability.
Diversity and change also connecting themes throughout all materials. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research
Research Interests:
“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... more
“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, socio-economic 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.
Students will explore, interpret, analyze, and apply research (theoretical and empirical) about educational and cultural diversity by comparing and contrasting case studies and through examining complex ethical dilemmas that are 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 deaf 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 differences 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 present in deaf education research and practice. Finally, working alone and in groups. (5) Use academic communication to construct findings and articulate critical stances regarding course themes and topics (e.g. 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 examine how ethical decisions about teaching and curriculum are made within increasingly diverse, complex, and changing environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf diversity; and (2) to apply research-supported teaching practices that respond to deaf diversity. 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 specific theme of ethical 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.
“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, socio-economic 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.
Students will explore, interpret, analyze, and apply research (theoretical and empirical) about educational and cultural diversity by comparing and contrasting case studies and through examining complex ethical dilemmas that are 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 deaf 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 differences 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 present in deaf education research and practice. Finally, working alone and in groups. (5) Use academic communication to construct findings and articulate critical stances regarding course themes and topics (e.g. 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 examine how ethical decisions about teaching and curriculum are made within increasingly diverse, complex, and changing environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf diversity; and (2) to apply research-supported teaching practices that respond to deaf diversity. 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 specific theme of ethical 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.
Research Interests:
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... more
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.
Students will explore, interpret, analyze, and apply research (theoretical and empirical) about educational and cultural diversity by comparing and contrasting case studies and through examining complex ethical dilemmas that are 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 deaf diversity shape learning and teaching, with a focus on understanding the role of diversity in the curriculum.
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 examine how ethical decisions about teaching and curriculum are made within increasingly diverse, complex, and changing environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf diversity; and (2) to apply research-supported teaching practices that respond to deaf diversity. 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 specific theme of ethical 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.
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.
Students will explore, interpret, analyze, and apply research (theoretical and empirical) about educational and cultural diversity by comparing and contrasting case studies and through examining complex ethical dilemmas that are 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 deaf diversity shape learning and teaching, with a focus on understanding the role of diversity in the curriculum.
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 examine how ethical decisions about teaching and curriculum are made within increasingly diverse, complex, and changing environments. The class has two main goals: (1) to understand the complexity of deaf diversity; and (2) to apply research-supported teaching practices that respond to deaf diversity. 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 specific theme of ethical 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.
Research Interests:
“Impairment is the rule, and normalcy is the fantasy...We are all nonstandard.” – Lennard J. Davis, The End of Identity Politics (2013a). “There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that... more
“Impairment is the rule, and normalcy is the fantasy...We are all nonstandard.” – Lennard J. Davis, The End of Identity Politics (2013a).
“There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that peoples could be profoundly different, yet all be valuable and equal to one another; an increasing sense that the deaf were a ‘people,’ and not merely a number of isolated, abnormal, disabled individuals; a movement from the medical or pathological view to an anthropological, sociological, or ethnic view ... [Depathologizing led the world to become] more aware of the previously invisible and inaudible deaf; they too became more aware of themselves, of their increasing visibility and power in society.” – Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices (1990/2008)
DESCRIPTION/OVERVIEW:
This course assists early-career educators examine special education and disability with a variety of lenses. The course overviews the changing roles of service professionals, like teachers and medical teams, who serve people with disabilities. The course design addresses historical and contemporary, and domestic and global issues affecting people with disabilities* that influence how they are positioned within educational, legal, medical, and social institutions. By drawing from various perspectives (e.g. theoretical, philosophical, conceptual, and methodological), the course encourages students to ask critical questions. For instance, how is disability configured in schools with respect to the body, family, language, culture, society, politics, policy, economics, and technology?
The course achieves these aims by providing opportunities to understand the practical and conceptual consequences of four models of disability: (1) philological, (2) biomedical, (3) sociocultural, and (4) biosocial. For instance, the biosocial vantage surveys ecological relationships among domains of power that shape deaf education in contemporary society. Course foci include—how theory, models, and services change; how changes affect institutions and people; how changing views on disability affect students with disabilities; and what consequences are inherent or ascribed to dis/ability within educational contexts.
On Language: This course uses people-first language. People-first terminology: 1) maintains the dignity/integrity of all humans as individuals, 2) avoids objectifying, denigrating, condescending or overly negative labels or euphemisms. See APA guidelines, (6th Edition, 2010, pp. 72-3, 76) for details.
GOALS/STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO:
Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to (SWBAT): (1) Identify and describe different theoretical models of disability, apply the models toward an understanding of historical and contemporary issues, within domestic and global contexts. (2) Employ theoretical models to explain how people with disabilities are identified, labeled, and served in special education settings. (3) Analyze how special education services and training for professionals have changed by articulating how social systems and human ecological structures contribute to the evolution of teacher preparation and professional training. (4) Articulate how those closest to people with disabilities (particularly the family constellation, special educators, and medical professionals) experience, interpret, understand, and respond to disability in schools.
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 special educators. (2) Assist teacher-candidates in becoming self-reflective deaf educators who are lifelong learners. (3) Synthesize evidence-based practices, sociological research, and special education practices in preparation for student teaching and early-career teaching. (4) Develop an educational 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:
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise. This class will expose you to a corpus of research regarding the thought-processes, practices, and values of special educators, disability scholars, and researchers. While some readings focus on deafness, the majority do not. All readings examine disability, though some focus on impairments and others on exceptionalities. One area of focus for this course is the subject of poverty, which traverses all listed domains of disability.
The unifying themes throughout all materials are diversity and change. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research.
“There was an increasing tolerance, generally, for cultural diversity, an increasing sense that peoples could be profoundly different, yet all be valuable and equal to one another; an increasing sense that the deaf were a ‘people,’ and not merely a number of isolated, abnormal, disabled individuals; a movement from the medical or pathological view to an anthropological, sociological, or ethnic view ... [Depathologizing led the world to become] more aware of the previously invisible and inaudible deaf; they too became more aware of themselves, of their increasing visibility and power in society.” – Oliver Sacks, Seeing Voices (1990/2008)
DESCRIPTION/OVERVIEW:
This course assists early-career educators examine special education and disability with a variety of lenses. The course overviews the changing roles of service professionals, like teachers and medical teams, who serve people with disabilities. The course design addresses historical and contemporary, and domestic and global issues affecting people with disabilities* that influence how they are positioned within educational, legal, medical, and social institutions. By drawing from various perspectives (e.g. theoretical, philosophical, conceptual, and methodological), the course encourages students to ask critical questions. For instance, how is disability configured in schools with respect to the body, family, language, culture, society, politics, policy, economics, and technology?
The course achieves these aims by providing opportunities to understand the practical and conceptual consequences of four models of disability: (1) philological, (2) biomedical, (3) sociocultural, and (4) biosocial. For instance, the biosocial vantage surveys ecological relationships among domains of power that shape deaf education in contemporary society. Course foci include—how theory, models, and services change; how changes affect institutions and people; how changing views on disability affect students with disabilities; and what consequences are inherent or ascribed to dis/ability within educational contexts.
On Language: This course uses people-first language. People-first terminology: 1) maintains the dignity/integrity of all humans as individuals, 2) avoids objectifying, denigrating, condescending or overly negative labels or euphemisms. See APA guidelines, (6th Edition, 2010, pp. 72-3, 76) for details.
GOALS/STUDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO:
Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to (SWBAT): (1) Identify and describe different theoretical models of disability, apply the models toward an understanding of historical and contemporary issues, within domestic and global contexts. (2) Employ theoretical models to explain how people with disabilities are identified, labeled, and served in special education settings. (3) Analyze how special education services and training for professionals have changed by articulating how social systems and human ecological structures contribute to the evolution of teacher preparation and professional training. (4) Articulate how those closest to people with disabilities (particularly the family constellation, special educators, and medical professionals) experience, interpret, understand, and respond to disability in schools.
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 special educators. (2) Assist teacher-candidates in becoming self-reflective deaf educators who are lifelong learners. (3) Synthesize evidence-based practices, sociological research, and special education practices in preparation for student teaching and early-career teaching. (4) Develop an educational 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:
An understanding of human nature is incomplete without studying how exceptional humans—in this case, disabled students—exist within social institutions like schools. The course surveys a rapidly evolving and expanding research enterprise. This class will expose you to a corpus of research regarding the thought-processes, practices, and values of special educators, disability scholars, and researchers. While some readings focus on deafness, the majority do not. All readings examine disability, though some focus on impairments and others on exceptionalities. One area of focus for this course is the subject of poverty, which traverses all listed domains of disability.
The unifying themes throughout all materials are diversity and change. In this course, we will discuss historical thinking on disability and investigate contemporary issues, addressing both consensus and controversy regarding how people with disabilities are affected by changes in schools and societies. The course discusses disability in human social ecologies, including advancing educational research, biomedical intervention, and socioeconomic stratification within an increasingly globalized planet. The course design provides abundant opportunities to explore educational and sociological problem spaces, those affecting the concrete “real-world” and issues that are more conceptual or theoretical. Considerable effort has been made to select readings and design activities that assist teacher candidates in understanding how disability, special education, and sociology converge in both material and abstract ways. The broad theme for this course is: understanding the role of theory in social research.
Research Interests:
"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... more
"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.
"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.
Research Interests:
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... more
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.
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.
Research Interests:
Research is at once technical and transformative, political and personal. Conducting good research, like good teaching, is a cyclical process called praxis, where theory, action, and reflection affect positive changes (Freire, 1970/2007).... more
Research is at once technical and transformative, political and personal. Conducting good research, like good teaching, is a cyclical process called praxis, where theory, action, and reflection affect positive changes (Freire, 1970/2007). This course surveys multiple approaches to research on deaf education as the discipline changes in the 21st Century—historical time periods, research paradigms, and methodologies all coevolve. The class design exposes you to a diverse research corpus and explores interdependent relationships between quality teaching and ethical research. The class has two purposes, first to help you understand and unpack the complex issues of contemporary deaf research. The second prepares you for conducting action research projects in your own classrooms. Together, the goal is to assist you becoming an evidence-based educator. We will come to understand how context and positionality affect research design, data collection/interpretation, and ethical inquiry in deaf education research. The course design provides abundant opportunities for actively studying critical moments of change that have profoundly shaped deaf education research in local and global contexts. Considerable effort has been made to select textbooks and other contemporary readings that view deafness positively, including philosophical subjects like ethics and deaf epistemology. The broad theme for this course is: understanding research praxis.
Research Interests:
Lev Vygotsky-who was disabled by and died from tuberculosis-is a world-renown critical theorist of education, psychology, and language, including deaf education and other domains of special education.
Research Interests:
Research on deaf students in higher education shows that digital technologies are important resources for learning. Deaf technological communications are changing and exist in social, political, historical, and philosophical contexts.... more
Research on deaf students in higher education shows that digital technologies are important resources for learning. Deaf technological communications are changing and exist in social, political, historical, and philosophical contexts. Multimodal communication theory is used to organize a diverse literature and to explore the digital paradigm shift effecting higher education, which affects how knowledge is created and shared in contemporary deaf education settings. This review explores the ontogenesis of digital deaf tools and practices for learning (DDLPs), interrelates multimodal theory and deaf education research, and reveals findings regarding the ways in which students and educators conceive of, design, and evaluate digital platforms in visual deaf pedagogies. These are organized into three categories, each affecting the others: (1) the purposes of using digital-visual communication modes, (2) specific practices or tools used in deaf digital education, and (3) foundational characteristics of deaf learners in higher education.
Research Interests:
Deaf education, for far too long has been a contentious field, one which researchers, practitioners and policy makers have repeatedly convoluted. What is known is that Deaf students learn in ways that are different from their hearing... more
Deaf education, for far too long has been a contentious field, one which researchers, practitioners and policy makers have repeatedly convoluted. What is known is that Deaf students learn in ways that are different from their hearing peers; therefore, pedagogy for deaf students should be different from pedagogies for hearing persons. Approaching Deaf education within a Deaf Epistemology framework and in an explicitly aesthetic/visual way (through various dimensions of aesthetic), should allow students to gain full advantage of the various materials, tools and artifacts that are used in the literacy classroom. Deaf educators can maximize deaf student comprehension of classroom content by better understanding aesthetic/visual considerations, which can be used then to new effect in the literacy classroom. Research to date has yet to clarify what it means for a deaf person to be a “visual learner” in a systematic way. This inquiry seeks to challenge this notion and elicit pragmatic guidelines to inform literacy instruction.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article critically examines a multimodal film produced by Rachelle Harris, entitled “Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives.” (2015). The film is presented in American Sign Language, accompanied with English... more
This article critically examines a multimodal film produced by Rachelle Harris, entitled “Seizing Academic Power: Creating Deaf Counternarratives.” (2015). The film is presented in American Sign Language, accompanied with English subtitles and graphic/design (aesthetic) elements, which are employed to critique the 20th century model of deaf education as exemplified by Myklebust’s 1964 “The Psychology of Deafness.” Harris’ film is designed to inform individuals in the Deaf community about harmful metanarratives that have pervaded the educational contexts for deaf people throughout the past 50 years. Harris’ film explores the concepts of producing deaf counternarratives as a strategy to gain academic power and assert cultural autonomy.
In this exploratory study, two different researchers offer complimentary analyses that explore multidisciplinary theoretical lenses to decompose this film artifact. These orientations include: culturally relavent pedagogy, multimodal communication, deaf epistemology theory, and deaf gain theory (Ladsen- Billings, 1995; Kress, 2010; Paul and Moores, 2012; Bauman and Murray, 2013). Our findings reveal that our unique researcher positionalities, as well as the distinct theoretical orientations we employ affect the analysis. Blair and Skyer chose different, though related theoretical frameworks that align with their perspectives regarding teaching deaf students as presented by Harris (2015) in her film.
Blair views the film through the lens of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), as exemplified by Ladsen-Billings (1995a; 1995b). CRP is based on the notion that all students are capable of academic success, all can gain and maintain cultural competence, and all can develop critical consciousness within the classroom. This framework focused on the teacher’s conception of self and others, as well as the teacher’s conceptions of knowledge as a basis to analyze the facilitation of student learning, especially in a marginalized group, in this case, Deaf culture. Skyer draws from an eclectic array of post structural education and communications research to explore the ideological and aesthetic dimensions of this artifact of teaching. This approach uses Larson (2014), Ranciere (2013), and Kress (2010), among others, to explore the multimodal, multisensory avenues for teaching as exemplified by Harris’ (2014) film. This orientation reveals some of the ontological flaws of the 20th Century model of deaf education. It reveals the need for radical equipotentiality in all deaf educative contexts, and offers new ways to explore the political and aesthetic dimensions of teaching deaf students.
This interpretive, qualitative study employed specific analytic approaches in order to offer a complex picture of contemporary deaf education issues and dilemmas. We situate deaf studies in the 21st Century and explore recent philosophical “turns” of deaf education by investigating it historically and conceptually through hybrid empirical methods. Data were collected through several structured viewings of Harris’ film. Data were analyzed using process coding, reflective writing, and memo coding. Our study concludes with implications for further study in the disparate domains of a new 21st Century deaf education, including (but not limited to) pedagogy, discourse, ideology, and aesthetics.
In this exploratory study, two different researchers offer complimentary analyses that explore multidisciplinary theoretical lenses to decompose this film artifact. These orientations include: culturally relavent pedagogy, multimodal communication, deaf epistemology theory, and deaf gain theory (Ladsen- Billings, 1995; Kress, 2010; Paul and Moores, 2012; Bauman and Murray, 2013). Our findings reveal that our unique researcher positionalities, as well as the distinct theoretical orientations we employ affect the analysis. Blair and Skyer chose different, though related theoretical frameworks that align with their perspectives regarding teaching deaf students as presented by Harris (2015) in her film.
Blair views the film through the lens of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), as exemplified by Ladsen-Billings (1995a; 1995b). CRP is based on the notion that all students are capable of academic success, all can gain and maintain cultural competence, and all can develop critical consciousness within the classroom. This framework focused on the teacher’s conception of self and others, as well as the teacher’s conceptions of knowledge as a basis to analyze the facilitation of student learning, especially in a marginalized group, in this case, Deaf culture. Skyer draws from an eclectic array of post structural education and communications research to explore the ideological and aesthetic dimensions of this artifact of teaching. This approach uses Larson (2014), Ranciere (2013), and Kress (2010), among others, to explore the multimodal, multisensory avenues for teaching as exemplified by Harris’ (2014) film. This orientation reveals some of the ontological flaws of the 20th Century model of deaf education. It reveals the need for radical equipotentiality in all deaf educative contexts, and offers new ways to explore the political and aesthetic dimensions of teaching deaf students.
This interpretive, qualitative study employed specific analytic approaches in order to offer a complex picture of contemporary deaf education issues and dilemmas. We situate deaf studies in the 21st Century and explore recent philosophical “turns” of deaf education by investigating it historically and conceptually through hybrid empirical methods. Data were collected through several structured viewings of Harris’ film. Data were analyzed using process coding, reflective writing, and memo coding. Our study concludes with implications for further study in the disparate domains of a new 21st Century deaf education, including (but not limited to) pedagogy, discourse, ideology, and aesthetics.
Research Interests: Aesthetics, Jacques Rancière, Critical pedagogy and critical theory Qualitative research Ethnography, autoethnography Service-learning in teacher education and multicultural education Transnational issues affecting education for immigrant children, Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, and Gloria Ladson-Billings
Research on deaf students using digital technology in higher education shows that communication modality is an important feature of learning and teaching; distinct modes exert synergistic influences upon other modes, which affects... more
Research on deaf students using digital technology in higher education shows that communication modality is an important feature of learning and teaching; distinct modes exert synergistic influences upon other modes, which affects communication practices for both students and faculty. This paper establishes deaf digital learning platforms (DDLPs) and categorizes them under three broad headings: (1) purposes, (2) practices, and (3) characteristics. This paper uses multimodal theory to reveal the nuances of communication practices and tools used by deaf people in digital learning environments in order to clarify the diffuse work represented in the literature. Multimodality illuminates dynamic communication practices and reveals new tools for researchers and practitioners to design and reflect upon pedagogical practice. Deaf technological communications are embedded in larger contexts of, social, political, and educational change; this paper contextualizes multimodal deaf communication as part of the digital paradigm shift effecting higher education, knowledge creation, and pedagogical practices. This paper illustrates how deaf students engage with digital learning and to what ends; however, the primary argument of the paper is to propose a complete reworking of deaf education through multimodal analysis, so that educators can better understand the complex relationships between communication mode, digital higher education, and foundational characteristics of deaf student learning.
Research Interests:
The field of Deaf Studies emerged in the late 20th century, occurring in front of a backdrop of rising neoliberalism and a generalized postmodern crisis of representation. The ontogenesis of Deaf Studies was predicated on studying the... more
The field of Deaf Studies emerged in the late 20th century, occurring in front of a backdrop of rising neoliberalism and a generalized postmodern crisis of representation. The ontogenesis of Deaf Studies was predicated on studying the languages and social behaviors of deaf individuals, and focused on the question: How do deaf people exist? (Bauman and Murray, in Davis 2013). Early work in Deaf Studies focused on empirical investigations into sign languages, and cultural inquiries into the lives of deaf people in ways that subtly marginalized different ways of being deaf (Fernandes and Myers, 2009). Bauman and Murray indicate that within hyper technological, globalized cultures, “threats [are] posed to the signing Deaf community by the medical and educational institutions of normalization” (p. 246, In Davis). Erting and Kuntze (2008) put the crisis in the following terms:
There is a sense of urgency as scientific and medical discourses regarding the techno-‐ medical eradication of Deaf people obfuscate and trivialize the need to identify, understand, and implement the necessary and sufficient conditions for optimal language socialization in natural sign languages [in relation to] majority spoken languages. (Erting and Kuntze, 2008, p. 269)
Bauman and Murray describe Deaf Studies in the postmodern era starkly. They believe that Deaf Studies has been cornered by a new existential question, which threatens its
2
foundations and perhaps its existence: In postmodern societies, should deaf people continue to exist? And if so, How?
These historical and contemporary crises situate Deaf Studies in uncharted postmodern territory. Bauman and Murray contend, “while having to argue for the most basic right of all—the right to exist—Deaf studies [has been] put on the offensive” (p. 247). Davis (2009) has called upon researchers to broaden their notions of disability identity, and calls for an era of Postdeafness, recommending a wholesale critique and disaggregation of calcified conceptions of identity in favor of more fluid and flexible approaches. Similarly, Fernandes and Myers (2009) eschew exclusivity and reject binary classifications in favor of inclusivity and heterogeneity across disciplinary and ideological boundaries. They write that Deaf Studies is existentially threatened and call for “a new paradigm” (p. 12) in order to preserve its work and ensure its survival. Foster et.al. (2003) describe the contemporary project of Deaf Studies and deaf education in global terms. They indicate that researchers and educators need to become aware of spectrums of inclusivity within globalized policy sites and emphasize a “wide range of permutations” (p. 2), which are existent across numerous policy assemblages regarding deaf education. Foster et.al. remind us that globalization effects deafness and deaf education differently in different nations and under different ideological control systems.
Fernandes and Myers (2009) are quite clear that new research modalities and new inquiries are necessary to understand deafness in fluid contexts where change is the only constant and technology, culture, language, and discourse are always in flux. They contend that Deaf Studies is indeed in uncharted waters. In order to navigate them, a new “multifaceted paradigm” (p. 13) is necessary for survival. The paradigm they envision is set squarely within postmodern concerns for globalized societies and the discursive threats to subjectivity, identity, and autonomy, which are reified through neoliberal educational policies. Fernandes and Myers (2009) contend that it is necessary to formulate new interdisciplinary approaches that “studies [the] negotiation of national boundaries and international deaf events” (p. 6). In order to preserve the labors of Deaf Studies and to “contribute significantly to the wider body of knowledge of cultures and communities in this era of globalization” (p. 13), they indicate that scholars need new approaches to deaf education and these approaches necessitate new methodological tools.
The foundations of inquiry have been inexorably altered following the Postmodern Condition (Lyotard, 1984/20YY). Human sciences have been irrevocably altered by postmodern theory; consequently, the questions of postmodern deaf studies are altogether different from the modernist inquiries it was designed to initially study. Postmodernism has created epistemological and ontological shifts which affect deaf people; these combined postmodern effects ripple outward and have been felt discursively as well as corporeally across all sites of inquiry in Deaf Studies. Bauman and
4
Murray (2013) write that as a result of these changes Deaf Studies, as well as deaf people, are at risk of becoming obsolete. They write, “future directions in the field of Deaf Studies may be thought of as the vigorous exploration and demonstration of the important extrinsic value of the Deaf communities and their languages” (p. 247). Deaf Studies needs to actively counteract the medicalized and neoeugenic discourses that are associated with neoliberal discursive regimes, or as Bauman and Murray (2013) put it, they are at risk of material extinction.
Framed in these stark terms, the projects of Disabilities Studies (Davis, 2013), Deaf Studies (Bauman and Murray, 2013; Fernadez and Myers, 2009) the theoretical workings of postmodernism (Angus, 2000; Zizek, 2011), and the swiftness of globalized changes (de Alba, Gonzalez-‐Guadiano, Lankshear & Peters, 2000; Rizvi and Linguard, 2010; Ball, 2012) questions regarding education, educational policy, and the ideological allocations of value through discourse (Rizvi and Linguard, 2010) are of the utmost importance to Deaf people and hearing people worldwide (Bauman and Murray, 2013).
There is a sense of urgency as scientific and medical discourses regarding the techno-‐ medical eradication of Deaf people obfuscate and trivialize the need to identify, understand, and implement the necessary and sufficient conditions for optimal language socialization in natural sign languages [in relation to] majority spoken languages. (Erting and Kuntze, 2008, p. 269)
Bauman and Murray describe Deaf Studies in the postmodern era starkly. They believe that Deaf Studies has been cornered by a new existential question, which threatens its
2
foundations and perhaps its existence: In postmodern societies, should deaf people continue to exist? And if so, How?
These historical and contemporary crises situate Deaf Studies in uncharted postmodern territory. Bauman and Murray contend, “while having to argue for the most basic right of all—the right to exist—Deaf studies [has been] put on the offensive” (p. 247). Davis (2009) has called upon researchers to broaden their notions of disability identity, and calls for an era of Postdeafness, recommending a wholesale critique and disaggregation of calcified conceptions of identity in favor of more fluid and flexible approaches. Similarly, Fernandes and Myers (2009) eschew exclusivity and reject binary classifications in favor of inclusivity and heterogeneity across disciplinary and ideological boundaries. They write that Deaf Studies is existentially threatened and call for “a new paradigm” (p. 12) in order to preserve its work and ensure its survival. Foster et.al. (2003) describe the contemporary project of Deaf Studies and deaf education in global terms. They indicate that researchers and educators need to become aware of spectrums of inclusivity within globalized policy sites and emphasize a “wide range of permutations” (p. 2), which are existent across numerous policy assemblages regarding deaf education. Foster et.al. remind us that globalization effects deafness and deaf education differently in different nations and under different ideological control systems.
Fernandes and Myers (2009) are quite clear that new research modalities and new inquiries are necessary to understand deafness in fluid contexts where change is the only constant and technology, culture, language, and discourse are always in flux. They contend that Deaf Studies is indeed in uncharted waters. In order to navigate them, a new “multifaceted paradigm” (p. 13) is necessary for survival. The paradigm they envision is set squarely within postmodern concerns for globalized societies and the discursive threats to subjectivity, identity, and autonomy, which are reified through neoliberal educational policies. Fernandes and Myers (2009) contend that it is necessary to formulate new interdisciplinary approaches that “studies [the] negotiation of national boundaries and international deaf events” (p. 6). In order to preserve the labors of Deaf Studies and to “contribute significantly to the wider body of knowledge of cultures and communities in this era of globalization” (p. 13), they indicate that scholars need new approaches to deaf education and these approaches necessitate new methodological tools.
The foundations of inquiry have been inexorably altered following the Postmodern Condition (Lyotard, 1984/20YY). Human sciences have been irrevocably altered by postmodern theory; consequently, the questions of postmodern deaf studies are altogether different from the modernist inquiries it was designed to initially study. Postmodernism has created epistemological and ontological shifts which affect deaf people; these combined postmodern effects ripple outward and have been felt discursively as well as corporeally across all sites of inquiry in Deaf Studies. Bauman and
4
Murray (2013) write that as a result of these changes Deaf Studies, as well as deaf people, are at risk of becoming obsolete. They write, “future directions in the field of Deaf Studies may be thought of as the vigorous exploration and demonstration of the important extrinsic value of the Deaf communities and their languages” (p. 247). Deaf Studies needs to actively counteract the medicalized and neoeugenic discourses that are associated with neoliberal discursive regimes, or as Bauman and Murray (2013) put it, they are at risk of material extinction.
Framed in these stark terms, the projects of Disabilities Studies (Davis, 2013), Deaf Studies (Bauman and Murray, 2013; Fernadez and Myers, 2009) the theoretical workings of postmodernism (Angus, 2000; Zizek, 2011), and the swiftness of globalized changes (de Alba, Gonzalez-‐Guadiano, Lankshear & Peters, 2000; Rizvi and Linguard, 2010; Ball, 2012) questions regarding education, educational policy, and the ideological allocations of value through discourse (Rizvi and Linguard, 2010) are of the utmost importance to Deaf people and hearing people worldwide (Bauman and Murray, 2013).
Research Interests:
This paper makes two distinct but related propositions regarding the contested nature of deaf education. It looks at the deaf education reform movements in the present theoretical moment and offers a sketch for what it may become in the... more
This paper makes two distinct but related propositions regarding the contested nature of deaf education. It looks at the deaf education reform movements in the present theoretical moment and offers a sketch for what it may become in the near future, exemplified by the propositions made by Bauman and Murray (2014). In order to achieve this “grand tour” goal, a number of theoretical dimensions regarding deaf education are discussed and linked to an emerging body of research on culturally sustaining or culturally revitalizing pedagogy (CSRP) including Ladson-‐Billings (2014); McCarty & Lee (2014); Paris (2012); Paris and Alim (2014).
The two propositions that I make in this paper are as follows. The first proposition asserts that deaf education reform movements in the 21st Century can, and perhaps must be linked to and clarified by looking at its contemporary manifestation through the lens of CSRP. The second proposal is broader in its implications and
addresses questions of deaf identity in educative and societal contexts. Simply stated, the second proposal claims that deaf people, broadly construed, should be viewed not as simply a group of disabled people, or as a minority culture, or as an ethnicity, or community; instead, deaf populations, including deaf students and teachers, comprise a “tribal body” with rights that include educational sovereignty. This paper unpacks the implications of these linked propositions in the three domains of educational practice: pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment.
To accomplish this goal, I draw from interdisciplinary bodies of research including deaf education, disability studies, sociocultural learning theory, and CSRP theory. This paper engages with the methods of discourse analysis and discourse synthesis in order to flesh out its claims. This paper is also grounded in the lived experiences of an ASL/English bilingual teacher of deaf college students. The propositions above are grounded discursively, theoretically and empirically, and are clarified by related interdisciplinary research accumulated in CSRP’s short, bright history. Emergent themes from this project include the importance of how power is irreducibly embedded in language; additionally, it stresses the importance of postmodern biocultural research, the role that aesthetics play in deaf student learning, and inquires into the nature of how ideological discourse is represented in all education contexts.
The two propositions that I make in this paper are as follows. The first proposition asserts that deaf education reform movements in the 21st Century can, and perhaps must be linked to and clarified by looking at its contemporary manifestation through the lens of CSRP. The second proposal is broader in its implications and
addresses questions of deaf identity in educative and societal contexts. Simply stated, the second proposal claims that deaf people, broadly construed, should be viewed not as simply a group of disabled people, or as a minority culture, or as an ethnicity, or community; instead, deaf populations, including deaf students and teachers, comprise a “tribal body” with rights that include educational sovereignty. This paper unpacks the implications of these linked propositions in the three domains of educational practice: pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment.
To accomplish this goal, I draw from interdisciplinary bodies of research including deaf education, disability studies, sociocultural learning theory, and CSRP theory. This paper engages with the methods of discourse analysis and discourse synthesis in order to flesh out its claims. This paper is also grounded in the lived experiences of an ASL/English bilingual teacher of deaf college students. The propositions above are grounded discursively, theoretically and empirically, and are clarified by related interdisciplinary research accumulated in CSRP’s short, bright history. Emergent themes from this project include the importance of how power is irreducibly embedded in language; additionally, it stresses the importance of postmodern biocultural research, the role that aesthetics play in deaf student learning, and inquires into the nature of how ideological discourse is represented in all education contexts.
Research Interests:
Since at least the time of Aristotle, vigorous debates have positioned the status of ‘images’ in communication—with one camp asserting that images are appeals to our baser yearnings and the other arguing that images are fundamental to... more
Since at least the time of Aristotle, vigorous debates have positioned the status of ‘images’ in communication—with one camp asserting that images are appeals to our baser yearnings and the other arguing that images are fundamental to consciousness and social reality (Knight, 2013). Gunther Kress asks: What is the role of imagery in social communication? Considered as the founder of multimodal communication and social semiotics theory, Kress’s work is foundational to inquiry situated at the intersection of language and image in social communication (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress, 2010). Kress’ multimodality theory adds analytic clarity for those interested in the power that images have in education. Kress suggests that education is an aesthetic experience greater than the sum of its parts (Cherryholmes, 1999; Kress, 2010). Along with Kress, I wonder how the aesthetics of education can be explained vis-à-vis multimodal theories of knowledge representation and construction. This scholar-author study hopes to answer the following question: How has Kress’s theory of multimodality used in education, and how has it changed over time? The goal of this paper is to better understand how multimodality clarifies the ‘doing’ of teaching using images in conjunction with language. My work in deaf education is aspires to understand how images can be leveraged as communicational tools in the pedagogical process. I wish to unpack Kress’s theory so that I can better understand how images are positioned relative to language in general research before digging into the specific ontological and epistemological differences that characterize how deaf students learn and how deaf educators use images, gestures, icons, and other multimodal visual representations in their work.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research on deaf writing pedagogies is theoretically and practically underwhelming. This affects deaf students learning to write in higher education and deaf students with additional disabilities, like Autism Spectrum Disorder and... more
Research on deaf writing pedagogies is theoretically and practically underwhelming. This affects deaf students learning to write in higher education and deaf students with additional disabilities, like Autism Spectrum Disorder and Language Deprivation Syndrome. The general problems are uncritical theory, underdeveloped empiricism, and weak, un-reflexive classroom praxis. This research base is dominated by nondeaf or nondisabled researchers or teachers who generate trivial background information or produce uncritical technician-focused methods, where writing is shown as a value-neutral skill or assessed using standards exogenous to deaf populations' situated needs. In contrast, this chapter critically interprets research and uses autoethnography to describe practical methods about deaf and disabled writers, depicted as capable, creative scholars. The chapter asks and responds to two questions: What does a critical analysis of research on deaf writing pedagogies show about deaf writers and teaching writing to deaf students? And how does autoethnographic praxis-analysis support critical deaf pedagogy?