Tanvi Gupta
Independent Researcher
India
Abstract
Curriculum frameworks in multilingual classrooms frequently overlook the unique linguistic needs of students with hearing impairment, leading to systemic exclusion from equitable educational opportunities. This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of twenty national and regional curricula—spanning contexts such as India, South Africa, Canada, and various European Union member states—to identify and characterize gaps in linguistic inclusion. Utilizing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles as an analytical lens, we evaluate explicit provisions for sign language integration, captioning and transcription requirements, differentiated vocabulary supports, teacher training mandates, and guidance on visual‐technological tools. In parallel, semi‐structured interviews with fifteen key stakeholders—including classroom teachers, special educators, and policymakers—provide qualitative insights into implementation barriers and best practices. Our findings reveal that only 15% of curricula mandate sign language instruction, 25% recommend captioning with none requiring real‐time transcription, and a mere 20% stipulate teacher proficiency in sign language pedagogy. Educators report ambiguous curricular language, inadequate professional development, and resource constraints as primary impediments to inclusive practice. We propose an enhanced curriculum model that systematically embeds bilingual sign–spoken language instruction, structured multimedia captioning, comprehensive vocabulary scaffolding, and ongoing capacity‐building for educators.
Keywords
Linguistic Inclusion, Hearing Impairment, Multilingual Classrooms, Curriculum Gaps, Sign Language Integration
References
- Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: Where next? Prospects, 38(1), 15–34.
- Brown, R. (2021). Technology‐enhanced instruction for deaf learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(1), 53–66.
- Fagan, M., & Pather, S. (2013). South African Sign Language: Challenges for the education of deaf learners. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(4), 346–361.
- Grech, S., & Soldatic, K. (2016). Emerging disability studies in education: Epistemological tensions in higher education policy implementation. Disability & Society, 31(1), 92–107.
- Hall, W. C. (2017). Bilingualism and bilingual deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 162(1), 73–85.
- Humphries, T., et al. (2018). Language attitudes of teachers toward sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(3), 161–171.
- Lee, C. L., & Mark, T. (2019). Sign language and literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 193–212.
- Napier, J. (2019). Sign language in Asia: Regional perspectives. De Gruyter.
- Napoli, D. J., et al. (2015). The impact of teacher sign language fluency on deaf student outcomes. Journal of Deaf Education, 20(4), 312–328.
- Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.
- Sharma, R., & Chaudhary, S. (2018). Deaf education and sign language policy in Indian states. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5), 540–555.
- Smith, S. D., & Jones, L. (2017). Multimedia captioning and inclusive pedagogy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 885–904.
- Winzer, M. (2009). The history of deaf education: In search of a lost identity. Oxford Review of Education, 35(1), 49–61.
- World Bank. (2019). World report on disability. World Bank Publications.
- Yoder, P., & Lieberman, A. (2018). Curriculum considerations for deaf bilingual learners. Deafness & Education International, 20(2), 75–93.
- Zaidman‐Zait, A., & Martin, P. (2011). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3), 332–341.
- Zinser, O., et al. (2020). Professional development in inclusive practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 105–120.