IMPLICATIONS OF PREDOMINANTLY INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING IN THE RESEARCH

ON COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION

According to Jackson (2011), within deaf education there seems to be a general turn toward more family-centered support and away from the special education paradigm, where “the historical trend of centered-based, impairment-focused services has gradually shifted to acknowledge the importance of building the capacity of family mem-bers and existing support systems within the child and family ecosys-tem and natural environments” (Jackson, 2011, p.  343). Nonetheless, research on language development after CI largely views learning as a predominantly individual process and echoes as such the child-centered diagnostic values and norms connected with the special education par-adigm. It needs to be discussed whether this is a problem. By virtue of its very nature, research is never neutral and as such is free to choose its ontological stances. However, in an implicit manner the research on CI sends out divergent signals about the nature of learning.

A risk develops when the predominantly individual perspective that is present in research on language development after CI were inter-preted by practitioners as though the studies were covering the pro-cess of learning in its entirety. A predominant view on learning as an individual process may lead to an interpretation that language devel-opment after CI primarily depends on speech therapy, training, and structured teaching. It will downplay the importance of social dimen-sions for learning and thus the innate power of the family as a commu-nity of practice. In other words, a problem arises when the remaining

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri Feb 20 2015, NEWGEN

106 A Changing World for Deaf Learners

“open question” as to “what happens in the areas that are not dis-cussed” (Illeris, 2009, p. 18), is in fact not discussed at all.

One of the main messages of contemporary learning theories is that a comprehensive view of learning implies the integration of both indi-vidual and social dimensions. In other words, given the interactional complexity of learning, viewing learning predominantly as individ-ual would be reductionist. Research on language development after CI communicates dominant understandings of learning toward the practice field and hence toward the construction and development of family support systems. If the language development of the child with CIs is reduced—by research, by practitioners, and consequently by parents—to a predominantly individual process, what implications would that have? The research may convey to parents and practitio-ners that language development after CI largely depends on therapy, training, and structured teaching sessions in decontextualized set-tings. There are several dimensions to this notion that illustrate why a hegemonic perception such as this could be problematic, in particular within the family context.

Emphasizing the individual dimension in language learning after CI downplays the important social dimensions of learning. It under-mines the innate power of the family as a community of practice to facilitate the child’s language learning through actively enhancing the opportunities for learning that are present in the family’s everyday life. Thoutenhoofd and colleagues (2005, p. 254) found that “intensive rehabilitation can be a strain on family resources.” Hardonk and col-leagues (2011, p. 319) mention the “burden of therapy.” Bosteels, Van Hove, and Vandenbroeck (2012) describe parenting of DHH children as a process being reduced to language development, through fol-lowing a path of intensive rehabilitation. They quote Jolien’s mother, who says, “you end up being a therapist, you’re no longer a mother or father” (p. 992). Quittner and colleagues (2010) emphasize that strate-gies such as parental use of facilitative language practices may reduce the stress associated with being both a parent and a language teacher, therefore enhancing the child’s learning opportunities. Families would be well served by knowing that therapy and structural training are only several of numerous alternatives when it comes to learning. The knowledge that there is much that parents can actively do in every-day family life to stimulate their child’s language learning, for instance based on facilitative language features, may ease some of the burden and stress.

Another reason why a hegemonic understanding of learning as a predominantly individual process may be problematic is connected to the view of the child as a person. Sfard (1998) addresses in this con-text the question of norms and values: If knowledge is conceived of as a commodity, this is likely to influence how it establishes people’s

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri Feb 20 2015, NEWGEN

Research on Language Development 107

identities and defines their social positions. In other words, describ-ing children largely by the skills they lack, as emphasized by the need for therapy and training sessions, might have negative impacts on the child. Bosteels and colleagues (2012) point to the argument made by Landsman (2002), who explains the problem of conflicting forces influencing the parenting of children with disabilities. Parents are torn between loving the child and hoping to erase the disabil-ity; they are torn between a profound paradox of saying to the child

“I love you as you are” and “I would do anything to change you”

(Landsman, 2002, p.  1949). Foucault (1977) speaks of a normalizing judgment, individualizing persons by measuring gaps, determining levels, and fixing that which is considered special. The acquisition of language can be measured, and measurements will reflect certain

“degrees of normality,” establishing over individuals “a visibility through which one differentiates them and judges them” (Foucault, 1977, p. 184). A perspective where learning is viewed predominantly as individual and decontextualized acquisition might lead to learn-ers being “perceived as objects” (Foucault, 1977, p. 185), which might be particularly unfortunate within the family context. In particular within the realm of family support, a more contextualized, social approach to learning will enable a view of the child as more than an individual in need of fixing, thereby acknowledging the learner as an active participant in and contributor to the family’s community of practice.

In short, the main issue is which understandings of learning lie at the basis of the construction of family support services. The perspec-tives that are brought to the endeavors of designing support for learn-ing “are important because they shape both what we perceive and what we do” (Wenger, 1998, p. 225). Hence, these perspectives require careful reflection.

The focus on learning through social interaction in general and the family’s community of practice in particular brings to the fore a task for practitioners who are guiding families: helping parents to enhance learning opportunities for their child within the informal context of the family’s everyday life. The family’s innate power to create oppor-tunities for learning resides in Wenger’s concept of building social infra-structures that foster learning (1998). Families need guidance on how to build social infrastructures. They need to learn how they can scaffold their child’s social environment in order to enhance the child’s oppor-tunities for learning and participation in the family’s community of practice.

There is a body of research confirming the role of family involve-ment in the child’s language developinvolve-ment after CI. As noted by Brown and Nott (2006), there is also a body of research on general language development confirming the importance of the parents and the family

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri Feb 20 2015, NEWGEN

108 A Changing World for Deaf Learners

as the primary learning context in early childhood. This implies there is a central role for family support systems to teach parents how to facili-tate language interaction. The crucial question however, as prompted by Brown and Nott (2006), is to what degree family support services are able to teach parents of children with CIs these facilitative features of parent–child interaction.

UNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNING IN THE CONTEXT