Abstract Summary/Description
Running time 4 minutes Simultaneous Communication (SimCom) often presents more challenges than opportunities in fostering meaningful learning for Deaf and hard-of-hearing students (Scott & Henner, 2021). By attempting to combine spoken language and sign language simultaneously, SimCom compromises language quality, prioritizing spoken language over proper sign language (Marmor & Pettito, 1979). This fragmented approach impedes comprehension and linguistic development while marginalizing Deaf culture and reinforcing systemic inequalities that favor hearing individuals. This presentation will describe the research that exists on SimCom and its use in Deaf Education classrooms. Allen and Karchmer (1990) reported that 63% of educators in Deaf Education relied on SimCom, a trend that persists today as mainstream classrooms increasingly adopt this method. Research highlights the detrimental impact of SimCom on language acquisition. However, there is minimal evidence supporting SimCom’s benefits for Deaf learners (Scott & Dostal, 2019). Early studies, such as Maxwell (1983), lacked controls for the effects of adding sign language in general versus the specific impacts of SimCom. Moreover, as Rozen, Novogrodsky, and Degani (2022) note, the distinct grammars of spoken and signed languages make SimCom an ineffective communication strategy. To better support students’ linguistic and academic success, educators should adopt a multimodal, multicultural approach centered on American Sign Language (ASL) (Henner et al., 2016). Fully integrating ASL fosters language fluency, enhances reading and standardized test performance, and provides a more equitable foundation for Deaf Education. This approach ensures that Deaf and hard-of-hearing students can achieve their full potential. Citation Henner, J., Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Novogrodsky, R., & Hoffmeister, R. (2016). American Sign Language syntax and analogical reasoning skills are influenced by early acquisition and age of entry to signing schools for the deaf. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1982. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01982/full Marmor, G. S., & Petitto, L. (1979). Simultaneous communication in the classroom: How well is English grammar represented? Sign Language Studies, 23, 99–136. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/507241 Rozen-Blay, O., Novogrodsky, R., & Degani, T. (2022). Talking while signing: The influence of simultaneous communication on the spoken language of bimodal bilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(2), 785–796. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00326 Scott, J. A., & Henner, J. (2021). Second verse, same as the first: On the use of signing systems in modern interventions for deaf and hard of hearing children in the USA. Deafness & Education International, 23(2), 123–141. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=OvMbxDYAAAAJ&citation_for_view=OvMbxDYAAAAJ:7PzlFSSx8tAC Tevenal, S., & Villanueva, M. (2009). Are You Getting The Message? The effects of SimCom on the message received by deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Sign Language Studies, 9(3), 266–286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26190556.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A153b078a0c958824f4b0745b66398f61&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
