BiBi success stories.

shel90 said:
My friend, that is not how it works at the BiBi program where I work at.

This research u got is talking about translation using spoken languages..nothing about Deaf ed there...

Have u ever worked in a BiBi program before?

That comment about "saying something in English and then translating it into the native language" has nothing to do with ASL and English.

I think u are referring to spoken English and other spoken languages..using both in the classroom which sounds more of a Total Communication approach. If I am correct, then yes that would show why TC programs do not work at all. Too confusing for the students.

In the BiBi approach, we do not do anything like this research described in the classroom...that just sounds so much like a TC approach.

You are using research done on hearing kids to criticize Deaf education. Last year, 3 of my students' reading levels went up 2 grade levels in one year. If that's not success, then I dont know what your definition of success is. To me, that is successful.

U have to keep in mind...many students who are in BiBi programs do not have a strong first language to begin with coming from other programs that failed them further delaying them so without a strong first language, it is very very difficult for any kid to tackle on a 2nd language and literacy skills.

We do try our best with our unique population of kids. These Spanish-speaking kids mentioned in this research already had a strong first language which is Spanish. Big difference.

Just keep that in mind when u think of "failures"
Click to expand...


Exactly. Concurrent translation is not a method used in Bi-Bi education.
 
netrox said:
Concurrent translation has been a failure and linguists have been saying it's NOT effective. They say that the best to learn language is to SOAK into it, not translate this statement to other language back and forth.

"There is one method that has been found to be completely detrimental to language development and it is called "Concurrent Translation." This method is implemented in a fashion where the instructor will say something in English and then immediately translate it into the native language or vice versa."

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Other research supporting the idea that concurrent translation is NOT favorable:

Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review More Effective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition?

"Concurrent Translation Programs:

Teachers shifts between languages to communicate each idea. (sounds like Bi-Bi)
Concurrent translation programs are wide spread. (yeah Bi Bi)
Researchers have discredited concurrent translation programs. (of course)
Children often ignore the second language. (duh!)
Teachers tend to favor one language or the other, usually not developing both languages. (of course!)
Teachers tend to not make English intelligible." (of course!)

Bilingual Education

That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students.
Click to expand...


This is not at all what my daughter's bi-bi school looks like. They don't just translate from English to ASL all day. How who they even do that? With SEE? Are you kidding me??
They use ASL to teach written English (and spoken when desired). THey don't SimCom or translate back and forth. That is ridiculous.
 
faire_jour said:
This is not at all what my daughter's bi-bi school looks like. They don't just translate from English to ASL all day. How who they even do that? With SEE? Are you kidding me??
They use ASL to teach written English (and spoken when desired). THey don't SimCom or translate back and forth. That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it.
 
shel90 said:
Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it.
Click to expand...

**nodding** IOt seems to be a common misconception to think that TC is Bi-Bi.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Concurrent translation is not a method used in Bi-Bi education.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's correct. I was only grow up to learn ASL only, now, look at my grammar. Sometimes, it's a frustation for me when you are not able to know how to describe a detail you want to say...

I saw how successful stories of bi-bi from a several of my friends. I wish I can take bi-bib education that would help my needs better... =/
 
shel90 said:
Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My personal experience is that the program at the school I worked at is not being utilized to its fullest potential. That is why I say I am glad Shel90 can contribute to this thread.

It will be nice to see more success stories today and in the future.
 
That is something that we do need more new resources being created for the BiBi successes sake to prove. I believe there are several resources out there already. Gallaudet Univ. has them as well, I believe.

Yeah, it's quite "relatively new" - just little over 20 years since it started.
(at the most where it's used)
 
Forgot about this thead, let me catch up a little...

"Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it."

Oh brother...

First of all, I am very familiar with linguistics.

Second, I am a fluent cuer although I sign as my primary mode of communication.

Third, I have observed deaf programs many times and considering the fact that I can speak, cue, and sign to deaf children with all of those methods SO I know the differences in how they process languages.

Fourth, I have done a lot of translation for deaf signers who needed my help to translate cued English to written English or to ASL, even for one particular Deaf who completed his Ph.D dissertation on cued speech.

So, please, spare me with the "failures of TC" - I've met several deaf people who come from TC background and they do well. I've met Deaf of Deaf doing well in English. I've met deaf cuers. I can definitely say there is NO such a thing as 100% fail-proof system for ALL deaf people.

I've met Deaf of Deaf whose ASL sucked too but on average, Deaf signers are pretty good with ASL but I can say many Deaf ASL users don't know English well and it's simply because they don't think in English. Well, duh!

But WHAT I can assure you is that ON AVERAGE.. and I emphasize ON AVERAGE, deaf cuers sure master English way much better than signers. Are there cuers that suck in English? Definitely. That has to be expected - look at the hearing... there are hearing people who cannot commend English well.

I have seen independent studies on cueing and signing and they all conclude the same over and over - on average, deaf cuers do better than signers and oralists in language. It's that simple.
 
netrox said:
Forgot about this thead, let me catch up a little...

"Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it."

Oh brother...

First of all, I am very familiar with linguistics.

Second, I am a fluent cuer although I sign as my primary mode of communication.

Third, I have observed deaf programs many times and considering the fact that I can speak, cue, and sign to deaf children with all of those methods SO I know the differences in how they process languages.

Fourth, I have done a lot of translation for deaf signers who needed my help to translate cued English to written English or to ASL, even for one particular Deaf who completed his Ph.D dissertation on cued speech.

So, please, spare me with the "failures of TC" - I've met several deaf people who come from TC background and they do well. I've met Deaf of Deaf doing well in English. I've met deaf cuers. I can definitely say there is NO such a thing as 100% fail-proof system for ALL deaf people.

I've met Deaf of Deaf whose ASL sucked too but on average, Deaf signers are pretty good with ASL but I can say many Deaf ASL users don't know English well and it's simply because they don't think in English. Well, duh!

But WHAT I can assure you is that ON AVERAGE.. and I emphasize ON AVERAGE, deaf cuers sure master English way much better than signers. Are there cuers that suck in English? Definitely. That has to be expected - look at the hearing... there are hearing people who cannot commend English well.

I have seen independent studies on cueing and signing and they all conclude the same over and over - on average, deaf cuers do better than signers and oralists in language. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Your words...

"That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students."

U made a blanket statement that BiBi education is a failure based on research used on hearing Spanish-speaking children.


Now, let me ask u this again..have u worked in a BiBi program? TC and BiBi programs are different.
 
netrox said:
Forgot about this thead, let me catch up a little...

"Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it."

Oh brother...

First of all, I am very familiar with linguistics.

Second, I am a fluent cuer although I sign as my primary mode of communication.

Third, I have observed deaf programs many times and considering the fact that I can speak, cue, and sign to deaf children with all of those methods SO I know the differences in how they process languages.

Fourth, I have done a lot of translation for deaf signers who needed my help to translate cued English to written English or to ASL, even for one particular Deaf who completed his Ph.D dissertation on cued speech.

So, please, spare me with the "failures of TC" - I've met several deaf people who come from TC background and they do well. I've met Deaf of Deaf doing well in English. I've met deaf cuers. I can definitely say there is NO such a thing as 100% fail-proof system for ALL deaf people.
Click to expand...

:gpost: I agree.
 
netrox said:
Forgot about this thead, let me catch up a little...

"Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it."

Oh brother...

First of all, I am very familiar with linguistics.

Second, I am a fluent cuer although I sign as my primary mode of communication.

Third, I have observed deaf programs many times and considering the fact that I can speak, cue, and sign to deaf children with all of those methods SO I know the differences in how they process languages.

Fourth, I have done a lot of translation for deaf signers who needed my help to translate cued English to written English or to ASL, even for one particular Deaf who completed his Ph.D dissertation on cued speech.

So, please, spare me with the "failures of TC" - I've met several deaf people who come from TC background and they do well. I've met Deaf of Deaf doing well in English. I've met deaf cuers. I can definitely say there is NO such a thing as 100% fail-proof system for ALL deaf people.

I've met Deaf of Deaf whose ASL sucked too but on average, Deaf signers are pretty good with ASL but I can say many Deaf ASL users don't know English well and it's simply because they don't think in English. Well, duh!

But WHAT I can assure you is that ON AVERAGE.. and I emphasize ON AVERAGE, deaf cuers sure master English way much better than signers. Are there cuers that suck in English? Definitely. That has to be expected - look at the hearing... there are hearing people who cannot commend English well.

I have seen independent studies on cueing and signing and they all conclude the same over and over - on average, deaf cuers do better than signers and oralists in language. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

If you are very familiar with linguistics, you should be familiar with the technique of using an L1 language to teach an L2 language. It is a method that has been used for well over 20 years, and it is, by and large, the most successful method there is, because it capitalizes on the strength of using a naturally acquired language to teach a secondary language.

Research for years has confirmed that Deaf of Deaf perform equally to their hearing peers academically and on all language measures. They are without doubt, the highest performing sub-group of deaf. This has been supported by research since the 1960's.

Observing deaf programs does not mean that you have observed Bi-Bi programs. Knowing how to speak, cue, and sign does not automatically translate to knowing how a child processes language. That requires a knowledge of developmental and cognitive psychology.

TC is the most widely used methodology currently, and has been since the 1970's. If it is so successful, why is it that we have continued to see declines in literacy rates, and have not seen significant improvement in overall academic functioning from deaf students in the last 30 years? If it were as successful as you claim, we would have been seeing steady increases in performance. Longitundinal data simply does not support your claim.

Bi-Bi has been the most successful method of educating the deaf in the past, and we are seeing successes with its revived use. Linguistic studies support the methodology and theory, cognitive psychology studies support its methodology and theory, developmental psychology supports its methodlogy and theory, and educational studies support its methodology and theory.

Of course there is no 100% fail proof method for all deaf children. Nor is there one for hearing children. What we are concerned with is what offers the most benefit to the majority. Set policy based on that. Those who don't receive benefit receive additional instruction using a different methodology. It makes much more sense than setting policy on what benefits a very few.
 
jillio said:
If you are very familiar with linguistics, you should be familiar with the technique of using an L1 language to teach an L2 language. It is a method that has been used for well over 20 years, and it is, by and large, the most successful method there is, because it capitalizes on the strength of using a naturally acquired language to teach a secondary language.

Research for years has confirmed that Deaf of Deaf perform equally to their hearing peers academically and on all language measures. They are without doubt, the highest performing sub-group of deaf. This has been supported by research since the 1960's.

Observing deaf programs does not mean that you have observed Bi-Bi programs. Knowing how to speak, cue, and sign does not automatically translate to knowing how a child processes language. That requires a knowledge of developmental and cognitive psychology.

TC is the most widely used methodology currently, and has been since the 1970's. If it is so successful, why is it that we have continued to see declines in literacy rates, and have not seen significant improvement in overall academic functioning from deaf students in the last 30 years? If it were as successful as you claim, we would have been seeing steady increases in performance. Longitundinal data simply does not support your claim.

Bi-Bi has been the most successful method of educating the deaf in the past, and we are seeing successes with its revived use. Linguistic studies support the methodology and theory, cognitive psychology studies support its methodology and theory, developmental psychology supports its methodlogy and theory, and educational studies support its methodology and theory.

Of course there is no 100% fail proof method for all deaf children. Nor is there one for hearing children. What we are concerned with is what offers the most benefit to the majority. Set policy based on that. Those who don't receive benefit receive additional instruction using a different methodology. It makes much more sense than setting policy on what benefits a very few.
Click to expand...

And also with the BiBi method, all deaf children have full and equal access to language regardless of the level of hearing loss they have. They all have a chance to participate fully whether it is in the classroom or socially. Nobody is deprived of a language, access to information, and access to communication and every child in the education system deserves those rights. We are all responsilbe for educating our future children and to purposefully put any deaf children in an environment where information and communication is restricted is reckless.
 
shel90 said:
And also with the BiBi method, all deaf children have full and equal access to language regardless of the level of hearing loss they have. They all have a chance to participate fully whether it is in the classroom or socially. Nobody is deprived of a language, access to information, and access to communication and every child in the education system deserves those rights. We are all responsilbe for educating our future children and to purposefully put any deaf children in an environment where information and communication is restricted is reckless.
Click to expand...

Very true. Thank you for adding that!:ty:
 
"If you are very familiar with linguistics, you should be familiar with the technique of using an L1 language to teach an L2 language. It is a method that has been used for well over 20 years, and it is, by and large, the most successful method there is, because it capitalizes on the strength of using a naturally acquired language to teach a secondary language."

Chomsky and Pinker and other well known linguists have repeatedly said over and over - language is pretty innate and that doesn't matter if it's L1 or L2 or so on infinitely. What you need is a medium that allows them to receive and express language interactively. In case with ASL, the medium is signs. In case with English, it's speech or cuem.

If you put a deaf child in a cued speech program, he will have no idea what he's seeing but that's to be expected. Over time, through natural interaction, he will "click" and start processing English. It's same with signing. A deaf child who have NO prior experience with signed language will NOT be able to understand ASL at all.

What truly sets deaf cuers and deaf signers apart is HOW they acquire languages. Unlike signers who are taught L2 by using L1, deaf cuers learn L2 (ASL) through interaction with deaf signers without heavy reliance on L1 (English). They are rarely taught and remember, they were NEVER taught L1 in the first place! They ALREADY acquired it NATURALLY. You don't "teach" ASL to deaf signers except for the grammar class!
 
netrox said:
If you put a deaf child in a cued speech program, he will have no idea what he's seeing but that's to be expected. Over time, through natural interaction, he will "click" and start processing English. It's same with signing. A deaf child who have NO prior experience with signed language will NOT be able to understand ASL at all.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. Look at Shel90.. she learned ASL after high school.
 
netrox said:
"If you are very familiar with linguistics, you should be familiar with the technique of using an L1 language to teach an L2 language. It is a method that has been used for well over 20 years, and it is, by and large, the most successful method there is, because it capitalizes on the strength of using a naturally acquired language to teach a secondary language."

Chomsky and Pinker and other well known linguists have repeatedly said over and over - language is pretty innate and that doesn't matter if it's L1 or L2 or so on infinitely. What you need is a medium that allows them to receive and express language interactively. In case with ASL, the medium is signs. In case with English, it's speech or cuem.

If you put a deaf child in a cued speech program, he will have no idea what he's seeing but that's to be expected. Over time, through natural interaction, he will "click" and start processing English. It's same with signing. A deaf child who have NO prior experience with signed language will NOT be able to understand ASL at all.

What truly sets deaf cuers and deaf signers apart is HOW they acquire languages. Unlike signers who are taught L2 by using L1, deaf cuers learn L2 (ASL) through interaction with deaf signers without heavy reliance on L1 (English). They are rarely taught and remember, they were NEVER taught L1 in the first place! They ALREADY acquired it NATURALLY. You don't "teach" ASL to deaf signers except for the grammar class!
Click to expand...


I was never exposed to any signed languages growing up and was very oral. My way of thinking is heavily influenced by English. I started taking ASL at 25 years old and now I am fluent in it. I understand all accents, poetry, and figurative speech in ASL. So, your statement is inaccurate as I am proof.

I have no idea what u mean by not teaching ASL to deaf signers...

This thread is about BiBi and how one acquires the 2nd language after building a strong first language.

:dunno: about some statements in this post being related to the BiBi approach.
 
netrox said:
"If you are very familiar with linguistics, you should be familiar with the technique of using an L1 language to teach an L2 language. It is a method that has been used for well over 20 years, and it is, by and large, the most successful method there is, because it capitalizes on the strength of using a naturally acquired language to teach a secondary language."

Chomsky and Pinker and other well known linguists have repeatedly said over and over - language is pretty innate and that doesn't matter if it's L1 or L2 or so on infinitely. What you need is a medium that allows them to receive and express language interactively. In case with ASL, the medium is signs. In case with English, it's speech or cuem.

If you put a deaf child in a cued speech program, he will have no idea what he's seeing but that's to be expected. Over time, through natural interaction, he will "click" and start processing English. It's same with signing. A deaf child who have NO prior experience with signed language will NOT be able to understand ASL at all.

What truly sets deaf cuers and deaf signers apart is HOW they acquire languages. Unlike signers who are taught L2 by using L1, deaf cuers learn L2 (ASL) through interaction with deaf signers without heavy reliance on L1 (English). They are rarely taught and remember, they were NEVER taught L1 in the first place! They ALREADY acquired it NATURALLY. You don't "teach" ASL to deaf signers except for the grammar class!
Click to expand...

Yes, langauge capability is innate. However, Chomsky has never stated that it doesn't matter if it is L1 language or L2 language, because the simple fact of the matter is without an L1 language, a child, nor an adult, cannot learn an L2 language.

Just because a child has been exposed to English only, and just because it is their only language does not mean that it qualifies as L1. L1 implies nativity. A child who has been placed in a situation where by language acquisition has been delayed or impeded does not acquire language in a native sense, and therefore, does not develop fluency in the same sense as someone who has acquired language naturally.

And you are incorrect regarding your assumtptions of a child not being able to understand ASL through exposure. In fact, a child exposed to ASL will have the advantage of a conceptual, whole language approach. Understanding concept is of the utmost importance in acquiring language. A phonetic approach does not provide this advantage.

A deaf child exposed to ASL acquires language in the same natural way that a hearing child acquires language. Through incidental exposure. Because peripheral learning cannot take place for the deaf child in a spoken language only environment, all language learned is done so through directive measures, and the results are seen as language delays and stilted language use that persists throughout the lifespan.

Likewise, a deaf cuer absolutely relies on their knowledge of English, and their internalized concept of the function of language in order to learn ASL. It is done unconsiously. I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of the more basic concepts of congitive psychology.
 
dreama said:
The media is very biased. I am sick to death of hearing about success stories about deaf people being given CI's etc etc...
Since I don't think the media are likely to print too many BiBi or sign language success stories I'd like to invite Signing Deaf people to let me know about their own successes in this thread.

I'm particularly interested in those who were raised with a BiBi approach.
Click to expand...
Actually success stories are good to hear from any approach. Its always good news when someone succeeds. Perhaps the reason CI's get more media attention is due to the link with the medical community and big money. Unfortunately there is not alot of money to be made with all approaches. It's a sad fact but in my guess, most likely the cause.
 
Back
Top