ndsay, 1989).
One judicial Hearing Officer held that "the dominant view among scholars and practitioners . . . is that total communication is an appropriate approach for any profoundly hearing impaired child" (In re Jean Marie and Michael Lyn H. [SEA WA 1979], EHLR 501:189). The Hearing Officer went on to add that: "This is not to say that an aural/oral approach does not meet the description of appropriateness for some hearing impaired children" (In re Jean Marie and Michael Lyn H. [SEA WA 1979], EHLR 501:189). The trend in recent years has been from predominantly A/O methods to the TC approach (Moores, 1982). Research has found, however, that each approach has advantages. "Controlling for differences in hearing level and intelligence, children in . . . A/O programs had better spoken language, while those in . . . TC programs had better receptive language . . (Musselman, Lindsay, and Wilson, 1988, p. 85). One problem observed with respect to the TC approach is that it requires a familiarity with and competence in signing by the primary care giver (Musselman and Churchill, 1991). Thus, the primary care giver (most often a parent) is often required "to communicate in a mode in which they typically develop only a minimal competence" (Bornstein, 1980, p. 474).
Turnbull (1990, p. 125) argued that the determination of the appropriate method should be "child centered and process oriented, not system centered and result oriented . . . ." Rondal (1988, p. 178) argued that the input of primary care givers can be "enhanced as a training tool . . . through training programs that encourage a more child centered . . . approach . . . ." The choice of methodological approach, therefore, should be based on the specific needs of the individual child. Thus, different approaches may be appropriate for different children, and the appropriate approach for a specific child may change over time. The focus in method selection, thus, should be ...