KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Educational Spectrum / 2024 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

A Comparative Policy Analysis on Foreign Language Education for K-12 Deaf Students: A Case Study of Türkiye and the United States

Cigdem Fidan(University of Rochester)0000-0001-7353-0633
Sayfa
204–217
Yayın Tarihi
2024-09-24
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Findings reveal ideological contradictions concerning deafness and language education for deaf learners, restricting access to foreign language education for K-12 deaf students in both countries.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Foreign languages are linguistic tools that allow access to various resources in the global world.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:However, access to foreign language education for K-12 deaf students is restricted because deaf students are often disqualified from foreign language courses based on presumed disability status.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Findings reveal ideological contradictions concerning deafness and language education for deaf learners, restricting access to foreign language education for K-12 deaf students in both countries.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Comparative policy analysis · Deaf students · Foreign language education

Abstract

Foreign languages are linguistic tools that allow access to various resources in the global world. However, access to foreign language education for K-12 deaf students is restricted because deaf students are often disqualified from foreign language courses based on presumed disability status. This study identifies ideologies underpinning education policies that limit foreign language education for K-12 deaf students and compares Türkiye and the United States. The study employs a qualitative approach and analyzes both countries' constitutions, education laws, and education regulations through critical discourse analysis based on the theories of linguistic human rights and Bourdieu’s forms of capital. Findings reveal ideological contradictions concerning deafness and language education for deaf learners, restricting access to foreign language education for K-12 deaf students in both countries.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Fidan, C. (2024). A Comparative Policy Analysis on Foreign Language Education for K-12 Deaf Students: A Case Study of Türkiye and the United States. International Journal of Educational Spectrum, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1454440

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (51)

  1. American Councils for International Education. (2017). National K-12 Foreign Language Enrollment Survey Report. Available at https://www.americancouncils.org/sites/default/files/FLE report-June17.pdf
  2. Batterbury, S. C. (2014). Democratising policy theories: Enhancing prospects for language justice for sign language peoples. Policy & Politics, 42(4), pp. 547-564. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655701
  3. Birinci, F. G. (2014). The effectiveness of visual materials in teaching vocabulary to deaf students of EFL (Unpublished master thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
  6. Cankuvvet, N., Doğan, M., & Gürgür, H. (2015). Investigation of parental expectations about cochlear implantation. Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(1), pp. 54-73. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c1s3m Celebi, M., D. (2006). Mother tongue education and foreign language education in Turkey. Journal of Social Science Institute, 21(2), pp. 285-307. http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423879786.pdf
  7. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (1982). Available at https://global.tbmm.gov.tr/docs/constitution_en.pdf
  8. Constitution of the State of New York. (1821). Available at https://www.dos.ny.gov/info/pdfs/Constitution%20January%202015%20amd.pdf
  9. Csizer, K. & Kontra, E. H. (2020). Foreign language characteristics of deaf and severely hard of hearing students. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12630
  10. Doherty, M. (2012). Policy and practice in deaf education: Views and experiences of teachers, and of young people who are deaf in Northern Ireland and Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3), pp. 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.678663
  11. Donnelly, J. (2013). International human rights (4th ed.). Westview Press.
  12. Evarrs, S., B. & Knotek, S., E. (2015). Foreign language and special education. In A. L. Heining Boynton (Ed.), American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2005-2015: Realizing our vision of languages for all (pp. 117-133). Pearson.
  13. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  14. Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit (2nd Ed.). Routledge.
  15. Gordin, M. D. (2015). Tongue-tied nation, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(28). https://www.chronicle.com/article/Tongue-Tied-Nation/228591
  16. Ilkbasaran, D. (2015). Literacies, mobilities and agencies of deaf youth in Turkey: Constraints and opportunities in the 21st century (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest. (1656169535).
  17. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Available at http://idea.ed.gov/
  18. Ishay, M., R. (2008). The history of human rights: From ancient times to the globalization era. University of California Press.
  19. Johnson, D., C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8, pp. 139-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-009-9136-9
  20. Karasu, H., P. (2014). Individual literacy activities with hearing-impaired children in the preschool period. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(22), pp. 1239-1249. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2014.1851
  21. Kuzeci, D. (2015). Choice of foreign language and politics of foreign languages, Journal of Kazim Karabekir Education Faculty, 30, pp. 13-26. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/31610
  22. Kuzu, D. (2016). The politics of identity, recognition, and multiculturalism: The Kurds in Turkey. Nations and Nationalism, 22(1), pp.123-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12139
  23. Law on Individuals with Disabilities. (2005). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5378.pdf
  24. McLeod, S., & Marshall, J. (2023). Communication for all and the Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(1), pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2022.2160494
  25. Murray, J. J. (2015). Linguistic human rights discourse in deaf community activism. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), pp. 379-410. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0012
  26. New York State Education Department (2016). Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/specialed/lawsregs/part200.htm
  27. O’Rourke, P., Zhou, Q., & Rottman, I. (2016). Prioritization of K-12 world language education in the United States: State requirements for high school graduation. Foreign Language Annals, 49(4), pp. 789-800. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12232
  28. Peters, S. J. (2007). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), pp. 98-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073070180020601
  29. Polat, F. (2003). Factors affecting psychosocial adjustment of deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), pp. 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eng018
  30. Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), pp. 258-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01130.x
  31. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), pp. 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00111
  32. Sari, H. (2005). An analysis of the relationship between identity patterns of Turkish deaf adolescents and the communication modes used in special residential schools for the hearing impaired and deaf. Deafness & Education International, 7(4), pp. 206-222. https://doi.org/10.1002/dei.9
  33. Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), pp. 127-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313150701495421
  34. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008). Bilingual education and sign language as the mother tongue of deaf children. In C. J. K. Bidoli & E. Ochse (Eds.), English in International Deaf Communication (pp. 75-97). Peter Lang AG.
  35. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2012). Linguistic human rights. In P. M. Tiersma & L. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law (pp. 235-248). Oxford University Press.
  36. Statista Research Department (2019). Hearing loss in the U.S.-Statistics & Facts. Available at https://www.statista.com/topics/3491/hearing-loss-in-the-us/
  37. Taşdemir, H. & Gürbüz, N. (2021). An investigation into the cultural dimension in EFL classes: Turkish instructors’ views and practices. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), pp. 54–74. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.30667
  38. Turkish Ministry of National Education (2006). Regulations for Foreign Language Education. Available at https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2006/05/20060531-3.htm
  39. Turkish Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education and Counseling Services (2018). Special Education Regulations. Available at https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/07/20180707-8.htm
  40. Turkish Republic Fundamental Law of National Education (1973). Available at http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.1739.pdf
  41. Turkish Statistical Institute (2021). The bulletin of statistics for persons with disabilities and the elderly. Available at https://www.ailevecalisma.gov.tr/media/73073/eyhgm_istatistik_bulteni_subat2021.pdf
  42. United States Census Bureau. (2019). Selected characteristics of the foreign-born population by period of entry into the United States. Available at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=center%20of%20immigration&hidePreview=true&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S0502&vintage=2019
  43. United States Department of Education (1973). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/rehab/rehabilitation-act-of-1973-amended-by-wioa.pdf
  44. United States Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Available at https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=policy
  45. United States Department of Education (2015). Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf
  46. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1996). Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights. Available at http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/linguistic.pdf
  47. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), pp. 249-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
  48. Wee, L. (2007). Linguistic human rights and mobility. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(4), pp. 325-338. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ884573
  49. Wight, M., C., S. (2015). Students with learning disabilities in the foreign language learning environment and the practice of exemption, Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), pp. 39 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12122
  50. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Method of critical discourse studies (pp. 1–22). Sage.
  51. Zeshan, U. (2003). Aspects of Turkish sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), pp. 43-75. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes