ASL, SEE Sign, & Signed English

Hmmm...I'm a hearing person and don't have that many problems understanding ASL.
Click to expand...

GNU,

Perhaps being a deviant has something to do with it.
 
have you ever volunteered/worked in a deaf school? Have you ever witnessed the quality, or lack there of, of education in a deaf school?
Click to expand...
This includes ORAL programs too you know! The problem is that dhh kids approach English as a SECOND language. Research has indicated that dhh kids make the same syntax, grammer etc mistakes as do speakers of other languages. Look, the mastery of English isn;t Harvard level, but you know what? There are many many hearing people who speak Italien, or whatever as a first language, who come out with sentances like "Are you feel better or When a passenger on foot heaves in sight, tootle him with viger.
 
deafdyke
The problem is that dhh kids approach English as a SECOND language.
Click to expand...


deafdyke,

You have to have a first language to approach English as a second language.
 
loml said:
Is the school where he will/is attending using SEE/SEEII certified translitorators/interpreters or people looking into being certified?

Can you also take SEE classes?
Click to expand...
His school teaches TC which I sort of support. I say sort of because I am concerned that throwing to many different methods at him will just be confusing. Their view is to try various methods and gravitate towards the one(s) that work. His teachers are more than qualified to teach total communication. As far as taking SEE classes, I have not seen any that are offered through the special needs programs.
 
Mookie said:
I am not surprised with that.

Hearing Parents are too lazy to learn ASL. Moreover, they do not have enough time to learn from their deaf kid(s). All they focus on their own careers, family, cooking, managing their banking accounts, free time.

I have seen that before. I was the freking SEE student at that time.

loml, you know nothing....
Click to expand...
Dude that is so NOT true. I would say that there are probably SOME partents out there like that but please dont make a generalization that lumps ME in with those that you speak of. I am busting my ass trying to learn as much as I can and I will continue to do so. This is not easy to say the least but it doesn't mean I will give up. I have to believe that there are other parents of deaf kids out there that feel the same way I do.
 
gnulinuxman said:
SEE is a very Englishy signing system. It is very tiring to sign for more than a couple of minutes because of all the word endings, the need to sign every single word, etc. I prefer ASL because it's cleaner, more expressive (the words/signs aren't everything--body posture, facial expression, eyes, etc. all go into it).

In SEE, you would sign "HI, WHAT IS YOUR NAME?"
In ASL, it would go more like "HI! :) NAME WHAT YOU look interested"
In PSE, you use ASL signs in an English word order, like this: "HI! WHAT YOUR NAME ??"

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Yes it's helpful. Thanks. From what I gather, ASL is a very efficient language for personal communication. SEE is geared towards teaching literacy and PSE is the in between. I do notice the lack of literacy in some deaf folks but it doesn't mean I cant understand them. There are rare cases that I have encounterd where no matter how many times I read what they said, I just don't understand what they are saying. So I do believe that teaching literacy is a good thing and will help a person achieve more in the world. That applies to hearing and deaf alike. IMO.
 
gnulinuxman said:
ASL is WAY easier to sign than SEE. I don't get why people think SEE is so much easier/better. ASL is more efficient.
Click to expand...
I don't think people think its better as much as it's a tool to help teach literacy. I think everyone would agree that ASL is far more efficient for personal interactive communication. I just think that conceptually they are different enough to add confusion to a learning child. So what is best? Literacy or personal communication or perhaps both.
 
rockdrummer said:
Dude that is so NOT true. I would say that there are probably SOME partents out there like that but please dont make a generalization that lumps ME in with those that you speak of. I am busting my ass trying to learn as much as I can and I will continue to do so. This is not easy to say the least but it doesn't mean I will give up. I have to believe that there are other parents of deaf kids out there that feel the same way I do.
Click to expand...

Rockdrummer,

I knew you would bring that up. Did I mention "All of"?

Why don't you practice SEE? Let see how you sign SEE in front of the class while the teacher clocks you for limited time? Don't you know that SEE is freking too slow than spoken-language in normal speed? I would feel embrassed for show and tell, presentation, etc that I had to use SEE. Hearing students looked at me while I lectured too slow. They think I am freking retard or what in the mainstreaming school?

There is nothing wrong with TC, PSL and ASL. I prefer ASL. Just throw SEE out...

I bet your kid would tell you in future that ASL is better than SEE.
 
rockdrummer said:
His school teaches TC which I sort of support. I say sort of because I am concerned that throwing to many different methods at him will just be confusing. Their view is to try various methods and gravitate towards the one(s) that work. His teachers are more than qualified to teach total communication. As far as taking SEE classes, I have not seen any that are offered through the special needs programs.
Click to expand...

rockdrummer,

For clarification purposes here... you say TC.... just exactly what does this entail, if you do not mind sharing. :) The teachers must of studied SEE somewhere, have you approached them? I know that there is the SEE Center, based in California. They have certified instructors in Canada, perhaps there are some in Chicago. SEE Center, also produces a dictionary and affix/prefix book.

http://www.seecenter.org/brochure.htm
 
loml said:
rockdrummer,

For clarification purposes here... you say TC.... just exactly what does this entail, if you do not mind sharing. :) The teachers must of studied SEE somewhere, have you approached them? I know that there is the SEE Center, based in California. They have certified instructors in Canada, perhaps there are some in Chicago. SEE Center, also produces a dictionary and affix/prefix book.

http://www.seecenter.org/brochure.htm
Click to expand...

Why do you support SEE even though you are not familiar with "TC" term?
 
Mookie said:
Why do you support SEE even though you are not familiar with "TC" term?
Click to expand...


Mookie,

There does not seem to be a consistant TC model. At least that has been my experience. I would say the same of supposed bi-bi programs. I simply want to know just exactly what methods are being incorporated. Fair enough?
 
Mookie said:
Rockdrummer,

I knew you would bring that up. Did I mention "All of"?

Why don't you practice SEE? Let see how you sign SEE in front of the class while the teacher clocks you for limited time? Don't you know that SEE is freking too slow than spoken-language in normal speed? I would feel embrassed for show and tell, presentation, etc that I had to use SEE. Hearing students looked at me while I lectured too slow. They think I am freking retard or what in the mainstreaming school?

There is nothing wrong with TC, PSL and ASL. I prefer ASL. Just throw SEE out...

I bet your kid would tell you in future that ASL is better than SEE.
Click to expand...
No you didn't say all of but it is implied by how you chose your words. Your qoute implies that all hearing parents are to lazy. You should say SOME hearing parents are to lazy to learn ASL.

Hearing Parents are too lazy to learn ASL. Moreover, they do not have enough time to learn from their deaf kid(s). All they focus on their own careers, family, cooking, managing their banking accounts, free time.
Click to expand...
And I agree that ASL is more efficient but I also understand the importance of SEE in teaching literacy. Wouldn't you agree?
 
loml said:
rockdrummer,

For clarification purposes here... you say TC.... just exactly what does this entail, if you do not mind sharing. :) The teachers must of studied SEE somewhere, have you approached them? I know that there is the SEE Center, based in California. They have certified instructors in Canada, perhaps there are some in Chicago. SEE Center, also produces a dictionary and affix/prefix book.

http://www.seecenter.org/brochure.htm
Click to expand...
Iomi, My understanding of Total Communications is that the approach is to try any and all methods and gravitate towards the one(s) that work.

http://deafness.about.com/cs/communication/a/totalcomm.htm
Total communication is the using any means of communication - sign language, voice, fingerspelling, lipreading, amplification, writing, gesture, visual imagery (pictures). The sign language used in total communication is more closely related to English. The philosophy of total communication is that the method should be fitted to the child, instead of the other way around. Another commonly used term for total communication is simultaneous communication, known as sim-com.
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
And I agree that ASL is more efficient but I also understand the importance of SEE in teaching literacy. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

If you wish your kid would write a wonderful English language, he needs to practice with you at home. Not many school educators would assist your son very much since they only earn their paychecks.

I strongly suggest you to watch perfect example from the A River Runs Through It (1992).

There is nothing wrong with father and/or mother to sit with deaf child daily for practicing the writing skills. Parents are responsible to teach their children. Not Educators with their impressive college degrees.

What's wrong with 15/30-minute drill daily?

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with ASL, too.
 
rockdrummer said:
Iomi, My understanding of Total Communications is that the approach is to try any and all methods and gravitate towards the one(s) that work.
Click to expand...

rockdrummer,

Thankyou for your clarification. Do you mind telling me how long your son has been in the program. Can the program show you statistically what the literacy results are? What goals has the program set for your son? What exactly are the certifications of the staff? TODs? college??? What is their position on inclusion? These are questions that they should be able to provide you accurate answers for. You have every right to ask. (okay I am stopping for now :))

Myself, I am not a fan of TC as defined in your post. I believe that the child needs a complete accurate access to language by native users of the choosen language.
 
rockdrummer said:
And I agree that ASL is more efficient but I also understand the importance of SEE in teaching literacy. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far in endorsing SEE in promoting literacy among young DHH students. Check an earlier AD reply of mine;

ASL v. ESE Study Reply
 
Eyeth,

Excessive prompting in a natural discourse of a particular communications method only serves to expose flaws in such systems, pointing out inefficiencies. The main objective is to allow students to naturally master their language, and not have inefficiencies retard their progress on a daily basis
Click to expand...

Could you expand on this please.
 
loml, ASL IS a real language!!!!!!! Compare the writing of an ASLer to the English usage of someone who speaks another language, and you'll see a hell of a lot of simalirties. Even many ORAL kids have trouble expressing themsleves in writing......
 
loml said:
Could you expand on this please.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, you advocate the Cued Speech approach. I wonder if you have observed SEE usage, either personally or in a classroom setting? If you have, you'll know why people refer SEE and its variants to be artifical sign language systems. It really is that stilted and actually 'interrupts' the natural flow of sign language.

And yes, I have been exposed to teachers using the SEE method, and as well as ASL. By far, me and my peers seem to 'understand' ASL teachers better and more naturally, as opposed to SEE teachers. I find it more difficult to follow instruction done under a SEE method and get 'fatigued'. Undoubtedly, some of my peers, instead of becoming 'fatigued', just simply gloss over the subject matter and not really comprehending anything substantative.

In addition to fatigue, it does appear that excessive prompting, in overcoming the 'artificialness' of the communications method, is more prevalent in SEE than ASL. (Personally, I've never really have observed excessive 'prompting'. Mostly, I see 'glassy-eyed' students, and find it difficult in determining if they really understood the subject matter being discussed.

However, the vast majority of Deaf instruction I've received, and have observed, was the middle of the road variety; Using PSE in conjunction with voicing. I'm not really a fan of that method either, but this is a common communications method as used in the DHH classrooms, especially at Deaf institutions and Gallaudet.

Granted, I'm drawing from anecdotal experience. As I've pointed out in an earlier link, there are studies done on SEE and ASL usage in the classroom, and it pretty much confirms my suspicions and observations about SEE usage in a formal educational setting.

That all said, I would use SEE only in limited quantities; For example, on a one-on-one basis, tutoring a DHH student in English, I would use SEE to read a sentence or two, just to get the 'nuances' of English in a visual form.
 
Back
Top