A pessoa surda: aspectos de desenvolvimento/ aprendizagem e contextos de educação bilingue

Deaf people form one of the most misunderstood minority groups in the world. They exist in every country, have developed their own language, community and culture but have had great difficulty in gaining recognition and appropriate provision. In this paper, the goals for deaf people are set out in terms of the understanding of their language and community and data is drawn from an international study of 17 countries in europe in order to provide insight into the views of deaf people. The conclusions are stark: deaf people learn their language too late in education (and not at home) have few situations in which to use it and are limited in their attempts to contribute to society by the lack of professional understanding and language competence. This is likely to have a major impact on community life. It has become clear that our social model of deaf service needs to listen much more to deaf people and respond more effectively.As pessoas surdas formam um dos mais mal compreendidos grupos no mundo. Eles existem em todos os países, desenvolveram sua própria língua, comunidade e cultura mas têm tido grandes dificuldades em obter reconhecimento e provimento sociais. Neste artigo, as metas para as pessoas surdas são consideradas a partir da compreensão de sua lingugem e comunidade; os dados foram obtidos de um estudo internacional realizado em 17 países europeus com o objetivo de possibilitar uma melhor compreensão no que se refere às pessoas surdas. As conclusões são desoladoras: as pessoas surdas aprendem sua língua tarde demais na escola (e não em casa), encontram poucas situações nas quais podem usá-la e são limitadas em suas tentativas de oferecer contribuições à sociedade por conta de falhas na compreensão e na competência de linguagem do profissional. Este fato é, provavelmente, o maior impacto sobre a vida da comunidade surda. Torna-se claro que nosso modelo social de serviço à pessoa surda necessita ouvir muito mais à pessoa surda para podermos responder a ela mais efetivamente

Deaf children learning to sign

Costumava-se pensar que as crianças surdas tinham dificuldade de linguagem. Uma pesquisa que realizamos com crianças surdas, de famílias surdas, a partir de 3 meses de idade, indica que crianças surdas aprendem a língua de sinais tão eficazmente quanto crianças ouvintes aprendem a falar. Em contraste, crianças surdas, de lares ouvintes, mesmo estando em programas para o aprendizado de sinais na escola, ficam atrás na aquisição da língua de sinais até a idade de 11 anos de idade. Alguns trabalhos iniciais de intervenção, que têm sido realizados com as famílias para introduzir a língua de sinais mais cedo, bem como vários meios possíveis de enriquecer o meio lingüístico de crianças surdas são explorados nesse artigo.It used to be thought that deaf children had a language difficulty. Research we have carried out on deaf children in deaf families from the age of three months, indicates that deaf children learn sign language as effectively as hearing children learn to speak. In contrast, deaf children from hearing homes, even in signing programmes at school lag behind in the acquisition of sign language even up to the age of 11 years. Some initial intervention work has been carried out with families to introduce sign language earlier and several possible means of improving the language environment of deaf children are explored in this paper

Response of Overwintering Caribou to Burned Habitat in Northwest Alaska

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) use lichens, when available, as primary forage on their winter range. In boreal forest habitats, wildland fires effectively destroy lichens, and overwintering caribou are known to avoid burned areas for decades while lichen communities regenerate. However, little has been published about caribou response to burned habitat in tundra ecosystems. To assess the relationship between winter caribou distribution and burned areas, we instrumented Western Arctic Herd caribou with satellite telemetry collars and evaluated their locations in relation to recent burns of known age (? 55 years old) across northwestern Alaska. We analyzed caribou distribution for different habitat types (tundra and boreal forest), age categories of burns, and possible edge effects. We also reanalyzed the data, limiting available habitat to a uniform traveling distance (5658 m) from daily satellite locations. Using selection indices that compared caribou use of burns and buffers to their availability, we found that caribou strongly selected against burned areas within the tundra ecosystem. Recent burns were selected against at both large (range-wide) and intermediate (5658 m) spatial scales. Caribou particularly selected against 26- to 55-year-old burns and the interior (core) portions of all burns. We found that caribou were more likely to select burned areas in the late fall and early spring than midwinter. Increased fires in northwestern Alaska could decrease the availability and quality of winter habitat available to the herd over the short term (up to 55 years), potentially influencing herd population dynamics and reducing sustainable harvest levels. We recommend that fire managers consider caribou midwinter range condition and extent: however, management that achieves a mosaic pattern of fire history may benefit a wide array of species, including caribou. A better understanding of the current regional fire regime and the distribution of available winter range will be required before practicable management recommendations can be developed for this herd.Le fourrage principal du parcours d’hiver du caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) est le lichen, lorsque celui-ci se trouve à sa disposition. Dans les habitats de forêt boréale, les feux de broussailles détruisent les lichens, au point où les caribous évitent, pendant des décennies l’hiver, les régions qui ont été brûlées afin de laisser le temps au lichen de se régénérer. Cependant, peu d’information a été publiée à l’égard de la réaction du caribou envers l’habitat brûlé des écosystèmes de la toundra. Afin d’évaluer la relation entre la répartition du caribou d’hiver et les régions brûlées, nous avons posé à un troupeau de caribous de l’Arctique de l’Ouest des colliers émetteurs à télémétrie par satellite et évalué leur emplacement par rapport à des régions brûlées récemment dont on savait à quand remontaient les incendies (? 55 ans) et ce, aux quatre coins du nord-ouest de l’Alaska. Nous avons analysé la répartition du caribou en fonction de types d’habitats différents (la toundra et la forêt boréale), de catégories d’âge des régions brûlées et d’effets de lisière possibles. De plus, nous avons réanalysé les données en prenant soin de limiter l’habitat disponible à une distance de déplacement uniforme (5 658 m) à partir des emplacements satellites quotidiens. Grâce aux indices de sélection comparant l’utilisation faite par les caribous des régions brûlées et des zones tampons et leur disponibilité, nous avons remarqué que le caribou délaissait fortement les régions brûlées dans l’écosystème de la toundra. Les régions brûlées récemment étaient rejetées tant à la grande échelle spatiale (l’ensemble du parcours) qu’à l’échelle intermédiaire (5658 m). Plus particulièrement, le caribou se tenait loin des régions brûlées il y a 26 à 55 ans et des sections intérieures (au centre) de toutes les régions brûlées. Nous avons constaté que le caribou était plus susceptible d’opter pour les régions brûlées vers la fin de l’automne et au début du printemps qu’au milieu de l’hiver. Les incendies à la hausse dans le nord-ouest de l’Alaska pourraient avoir pour effet de diminuer la disponibilité et la qualité de l’habitat d’hiver à la disposition du troupeau à court terme (jusqu’à 55 ans), ce qui pourrait influencer la dynamique de la population du troupeau et réduire les taux de récoltes durables. Nous recommandons que les directeurs des incendies considèrent l’état et l’étendue du parcours du caribou en parcours d’hiver. Cela dit, une gestion donnant lieu à un dessin en mosaïque de l’historique des incendies pourrait avantager une vaste gamme d’espèces, dont le caribou. Il faudra avoir une meilleure compréhension du régime régional actuel des incendies et de la répartition du parcours d’hiver disponible avant que des recommandations de gestion réalisables puissent être faites pour ce troupeau

I-65 Downtown Closure: Saving Time, Enhancing Safety

In 2018, portions of I-65 were closed in Indianapolis to construct seven bridge rehabilitations from downtown north to I-465. This presentation discusses the challenges and opportunities related to an interstate closure, including reasons behind INDOT’s decision to close I-65. Highlights include design, project delivery, and construction elements implemented into the contract. Best practices and guidelines for which types of projects could consider closure as a viable MOT (maintenance of traffic) scheme will be covered

Center for Population Dynamics Quarterly Brief July 2016: Population Loss and Development Trends in Cleveland

When a place loses population, it’s assumed that’s because people leave. But it’s not that simple. What’s lost in translation is today’s households have fewer people living in them than they did years prior. For instance, 40% of mothers aged 40 to 44 had four or more children in 1976. Today, it’s 14%. Overall, the average American household contracted from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.54 today. This can explain the apparent paradox of population loss in “shrinking” communities while the number of occupied households grows. Such was the case in Cuyahoga County. There were 1.72 million residents in the county in 1970. By 2010 the population fell by 440,713, to just over 1.28 million. How much of that loss was due to change in family composition? If the average household size remained at 1970 levels (3.10 people per house), the population of Cuyahoga County would be 1,692,323 in 2010 given its current household totals—412,201 more than the actual number. Taken together, 93.5% of Cuyahoga County’s population loss since 1970 can be explained by change in household composition, not necessarily entire households leaving. Does this mean outmigration is not a factor locally? No. This is particularly so for the City of Cleveland. Cleveland’s population approached its peak in 1950 with 914,808 residents. In 2010 the population was 396,830—a decline of 517,978 . While the average household size dropped considerably from 1950 (3.44) to 2010 (2.37), the change in household composition accounted for only 34.6% of the city’s population losses since 1950. The remainder was likely due to the decline in the actual number of households, which dropped by nearly 100,000. That is, people left, and not many people arrived, and this was manifested in the erosion of occupied residencies and net outmigration

Center for Population Dynamics Quarterly Brief July 2016: Population Loss and Development Trends in Cleveland

When a place loses population, it’s assumed that’s because people leave. But it’s not that simple. What’s lost in translation is today’s households have fewer people living in them than they did years prior. For instance, 40% of mothers aged 40 to 44 had four or more children in 1976. Today, it’s 14%. Overall, the average American household contracted from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.54 today. This can explain the apparent paradox of population loss in “shrinking” communities while the number of occupied households grows. Such was the case in Cuyahoga County. There were 1.72 million residents in the county in 1970. By 2010 the population fell by 440,713, to just over 1.28 million. How much of that loss was due to change in family composition? If the average household size remained at 1970 levels (3.10 people per house), the population of Cuyahoga County would be 1,692,323 in 2010 given its current household totals—412,201 more than the actual number. Taken together, 93.5% of Cuyahoga County’s population loss since 1970 can be explained by change in household composition, not necessarily entire households leaving. Does this mean outmigration is not a factor locally? No. This is particularly so for the City of Cleveland. Cleveland’s population approached its peak in 1950 with 914,808 residents. In 2010 the population was 396,830—a decline of 517,978 . While the average household size dropped considerably from 1950 (3.44) to 2010 (2.37), the change in household composition accounted for only 34.6% of the city’s population losses since 1950. The remainder was likely due to the decline in the actual number of households, which dropped by nearly 100,000. That is, people left, and not many people arrived, and this was manifested in the erosion of occupied residencies and net outmigration