摘要：Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} This article focuses on the familial dynamics of interactions between deaf children and hearing parents, as affected by the difference between them, and the educational aspects in this context. Emphasis is also placed on the subjectivities of the guardians or representatives of the families. A qualitative methodology was used, with the participation of eighteen family members, who discussed subjects such as: communication and language, sign language, and cochlear implants. The categories found were: resistance/ denial of deafness; guilt/responsibility for deafness, and presence/absence of sign language in the family. It can be concluded that programs with a psycho-educational focus, involving familial experiences, should be considered priorities in the conduction of public policies, for they promote the re-signification of experiences, resulting in better development of the child.
其他摘要：This article focuses on the familial dynamics of interactions between deaf children and hearing parents, as affected by the difference between them, and the educational aspects in this context. Emphasis is also placed on the subjectivities of the guardians or representatives of the families. A qualitative methodology was used, with the participation of eighteen family members, who discussed subjects such as: communication and language, sign language, and cochlear implants. The categories found were: resistance/ denial of deafness; guilt/responsibility for deafness, and presence/absence of sign language in the family. It can be concluded that programs with a psycho-educational focus, involving familial experiences, should be considered priorities in the conduction of public policies, for they promote the re-signification of experiences, resulting in better development of the child.
