User talk:Mek0306/sandbox

Different versions of Sign Language
American Sign Language is used by many deaf in the United States. It promotes assimilation into the Deaf Community. ASL is a very visual language, and speech- reading or listening skills are not needed to learning ASL fluently due to the visual aspect of the language. Signs are constantly changing over the years as new words come about. ASL has developed over time through usage by deaf individuals and is a free flowing, natural language. ASL is a language complete in itself. It is based off of Latin routes. ASL has its own set of grammar and syntax. The structure usually follows the Time+ Topic+ Comment. Pidgin Signed English is best described as a combination of English and ASL. A simplified language derived from two or more languages. Culturally Deaf people, signing with each other use ASL, but many use a mixture of ASL and English. PSE is most frequently used by those who use spoken English as their primary language. Signing Exact English is a system that matches sign language to the exact English translation. In 1972, this was one the first sign languages to be published. Imagine a visual counterpart to match written and spoken English. This method will include word endings not gestured in PSE or ASL. Sentences are signed word for word in English. Cued Speech is a system of communication used with and among deaf or hard of hearing people. It is a phonemic-based system which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of hand shapes to represent consonants in different locations near the mouth.

Deaf President Now
University, Gallaudet. "Speeches and Remarks." Dr. I. King Jordan - Gallaudet University. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

I King Jordan, had made history in 1988 for becoming the first deaf president of Gallaudet University. The year he became president, students, with the support of from many alumni, faculty, staff and friends, protested the Board of Trustees’ of a hearing president. DPN (deaf president now) was a week long protest. It was a watershed event in the lives of deaf and hard of hearing all over the world. At the end of this memorable protest, the Board reversed the decision for a hearing president and named I King Jordan, one of three finalist for the position. I King Jordan was the eight president but the first deaf president. Mek0306 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Dr. Jordan is a native to Glen Riddle, PA. After he graduated school, he enlisted in the US Navy and served four years. He ended up getting into a terrible motorcycle accident which left him profoundly deaf at the age of 21. Dr, Jordan earned a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet in 1970. The following year he earned an M.A and then in 1973 he earned his Ph.D., both in psychology and both from the University of Tennessee. Mek0306 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Mek0306 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mek0306 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)== Public Accommodations ==

National, A. O. T. D. (2015). Legal Rights, 6th Ed. : The Guide for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People. Washington, DC, US: Gallaudet University Press. The American Disability act, also known as the ADA has made a huge impact on the deaf community. In 1990 it was a land mark for people for with disabilities. The ADA has been a great benefit for hard of hearing and deaf people to help they gain every aspect of life that a hearing person has. The ADA took the important principles in these laws and extended them to the broad mainstream of Americans public life. It prohibits discrimination in almost every aspect of society.(26) Meaning you would have a legitimate reason to not hire someone with a disability. The legislation provides legal protection in employment(Title I), access to state and local government and public transportation (title II), public accommodations (Title III)(they have to provide a translator), and telecommunications (title IV). (26) George H W Bush signed this into act, and there was no acclaimed retaliation from this. It didn’t solve the problem of discrimination but it gave those who had a disability protection. Mek0306 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC) In 1975 Congress found that more then eight million children were not receiving equal education. There was another bill passed to help solve this problem called the Indivual with disabilities act (IDEA). The IDEA was made to “ensure that all children with disabilities have access to a free, appropriate, public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their needs and prepare them for employment ad independent living. To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. To assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to pay for education for all children with disabilities. And finally to assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.” (73) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mek0306 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Deaf as a disability
Being apart of the deaf community has changed over time.In society we accept certain things in society but once we find a cure, or a health issues that requires help then it becomes a disability. What is that ultimate deciding point for a disability to be one? The social norms and technology of normalization come into play. (280) During the industrial revolution they used to have the non hearing people work in the loud factories and pay them less because they wouldn’t quit due to noise. It was a way to regulate the able bodied workers to those who couldn’t because of disabilities. “Mental defiance” were abled to work in simple repetitive task. (278) In America we accept as normal humans variation, and not disability. We have wide differences among people in height (this goes across the world) but we consider very short people to have a disability. We accept differences in weight but gross obesity is a disability. Differing degrees of alcohol consumption are not a disability but alcoholism is. (279) Its almost like the first schools for the deaf and hearing impaired where they took you away from home to be with people just like you to turn you into normal citizens.Mek0306 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The impact of the Cochlear implant
Research shows that children who are deaf have difficulty socializing when they are with a group of hearing peers. Deaf children also seem to show that have lower self-esteem than their hearing peers. The number of deaf children receiving cochlear implants is growing daily. The present study was conducted to examine whether deaf children with cochlear implants differ in perceived acceptance and competence as compared with their hearing peers. To date, there has been very little research into the psychological effects of cochlear implants in children. All participants were subjects in a larger study designed to examine the factors that influence the development in deaf children with cochlear implants of positive relationships with hearing peers. Participants were 8 deaf children, ages 5 to 6, who received a cochlear implant at the New York University Cochlear Implant Center (CIC) at least I year prior to participation. Each child with an implant was matched by age and gender to a hearing control child. Both children were asked to play with each other for 20 minutes in a room with age-appropriate toys. These sessions were videotaped and later coded. Modes of communication, initiation and response to interactions, and other aspects of the streams of behavior were assessed. Following the play session, parents of the child with the cochlear implant completed a series of questionnaires, including the Child Behavior Scale (CBS; L,add & Profilet, 1996), Vineland ABS (Sparrow, Balla & Cicchetti, 1984) and a demographic questionnaire. Following the each play session, the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCSA; Harter & Pike, 1984) was completed by both the deaf and hearing child. ^ In spite of small sample sizes, findings suggest that children with cochlear implants do not differ from hearing children on any self-perception scales. Children with cochlear implants who perceive themselves in a generally positive manner were found to interact more, have more verbal exchanges, and initiate more new topics when engaged in a social relationship with a hearing peer. Regression analyses determined gender to be a significant predictor of self-perception and peer acceptance among deaf children with cochlear implants. Females tended to feel more accepted by peers and perceived themselves more positively than did males. Gender and hearing status were found to have interacted significantly to predict a child's overall self-perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mek0306 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Social interaction
Alongside the communication and psychological difficulties that deaf children can face, deaf children’s social behavior has been found to be more withdrawn and less collaborative than that of their hearing peers (Wauters & Knoors, 2007). While there are mixed findings in assessing deaf children’s peer acceptance (Stinson & Kluwin, 2003), deaf children have been found to feel more rejected and neglected than their hearing peers (Cappelli, Daniels, Durieux-Smith, McGrath, & Neuss, 1995; Wauters & Knoors, 2007). Research indicates that deaf children do not have as many close friendships with hearing peers (Wauters & Knoors, 2007) and these relationships are more sporadic (Lederberg, Rosenblatt, Vandell, & Chapin, 1987). Deaf children are also more likely to have a complete lack of friends in their mainstream class than their hearing peers (Nunes, Pretzlik, & Olson, 2001). Furthermore, compared with mothers of hearing teenagers, mothers of deaf adolescents have rated their children’s friendships as higher in aggression and lower in warmth (Henggeler, Watson, & Whelan, 1990). However, this was not found in the children’s self-reports.

It is also important to consider the attitudes and beliefs of hearing children regarding their deaf peers and what may mediate this. Most, Weisel, and Tur-Kaspa (1999) compared hearing peers who had regular contact with deaf children in mainstream education compared with those who did not, according to their perceived personal qualities and the student’s attitudes of deafness. It was noted that the deaf student’s speech intelligibility was associated with more positive perceived personal qualities by their hearing peers. Furthermore, the group that had contact with their deaf peers associated more positive qualities of those with poor speech intelligibility compared with students who did not have this contact. Within this context of familiarity, Lewis (1995) found that peer acceptance of children with disabilities is affected by other children’s understanding of a child’s special needs. Stinson and Liu (1999) found that hearing peers had varying attitudes toward deafness, with negative attitudes centred on frustration, misinterpretation, communication breakdowns, fear, and lack of familiarity with deaf peers and an unwillingness to consider children who are “different.” This demonstrates that it is necessary to consider both the impact of characteristics associated with the deaf child and the attitudes and characteristics of their hearing peers on peer interactions and relationships. Mek0306 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Developmental Challenge
Deaf children born to hearing families are more vulnerable to language delays (Moog & Geers, 1985). The potential mismatch of communication modalities used between deaf children and their families could be linked to this. Vulnerability to language delays can affect children’s development of communication strategies; understanding of the thoughts and feelings of others (Peterson & Slaughter, 2006); ability to self-regulate especially in relation to attention, impulsivity, and emotions (Mitchell & Quittner, 1996; Rieffe, 2011); rate of understanding social rules (Rachford & Furth, 1986); and overall social functioning (Marschark et al., 1993; Stinson & Whitmire, 2000). Additionally, deaf children have been found to be 1.5 to 2 times more vulnerable to mental health difficulties (Hindley, 2005) compared with their hearing peers. Problems can relate to loneliness (Most, 2007) and depression (Theunissen, et al., 2011), along with wider behavioral problems (Barker, et al., 2009).Mek0306 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mek0306 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)