Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bi-Bi Model of Literacy education

R

rockdrummer

Guest
Link to full article: Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bilingual-Bicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students? -- Mayer and Wells 1 (2): 93 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bilingual-Bicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students?
Connie Mayer1, and Gordon Wells2
1Metropolitan Toronto School for the Deaf
2Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Drawing on Cummins' (1989) linguistic interdependence model, proponents of bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students claim that, if ASL is well established as the L1, then literacy in English (L2) can be achieved by means of reading and writing without exposure to English through either speech or English-based sign. In our opinion, this claim is based on a false analogy: the situation of the deaf learner of English literacy does not match the conditions assumed by the linguistic interdependence model. We draw on the work of Vygotsky and Halliday to develop a conceptualization of the processes involved in becoming literate, examining the particular and unique challenges that deaf students face as they strive to become members of the linguistic community of users of written English. We argue that becoming literate involves mastering three modes of language use: "social speech," "inner speech," and written text. In some respects the educational context for deaf students is analogous to that of other bilingual learners; in some crucial aspects, it is very different.

Correspondence should be sent to Connie Mayer, 95 Ferrier Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 3H6, Canada (e-mail: cmayer@oise.on.ca).
Click to expand...
 
This article is interesting and I would like to hear from others on their opinions about it.
Thanks
 
Bumping this up again. I am interested in hearing from the supporters of the Linguistic Interdependence Theory. Or the supporters of the bi-bi approach. This is very important to me. Please, your thoughts.

Thank you
 
rockdrummer said:
Bumping this up again. I am interested in hearing from the supporters of the Linguistic Interdependence Theory. Or the supporters of the bi-bi approach. This is very important to me. Please, your thoughts.

Thank you
Click to expand...

I am sure others here can reply better than me, but want to add that this article seems to rely on sign language having no written form? The children first have only inner speaking, later it starts to get an awarness about outher speaking, and writing is a very good way to develop this skill, according to Vygotsky, if I remember right, from the time I read Vygotsky. I have seen deaf children develop an awarness about their outer speaking form by the use of videocams, and commenting their language and way to express themselves through it. Regarding to Vygotsky, they could then use this skill when writing another language. Why is this not mentioned in this article?

Another problem with this article seems to be that they rely on the theories of Vygotsky alone. There are different theories about learning, and often a teacher uses several theories when teaching. There are different levels and aspects of language development, Vygotsky beeing very popular in the 80's and 90's, when this article was written.

So this one was a bit weak and simplificed to me, but raised some interesting questions, good snacks for the mind.
 
rockdrummer said:
Link to full article: Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory Support A Bilingual-Bicultural Model of Literacy Education for Deaf Students? -- Mayer and Wells 1 (2): 93 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Click to expand...

The linguistic interdependence model, as used in this article, refers to the interdependence of spoken languages. It does not account for the differences in processing of 2 langauges in separate modes. I would counter the citations of Vygotsky with the citations of Piaget.

The linguistic interpdependence model is but one theory of language acquisition, development, and cognition. It is not applicable to all situations.
 
I will read it when I am not so tired. LOL!
 
jillio said:
I would counter the citations of Vygotsky with the citations of Piaget.
Click to expand...
Where would one find these citatons? I did a search and came up with hundreds of hits. Can you be more specific or provide a link to the information? That would be helpful.... Thanks!!
 
rockdrummer said:
I found this on The Cognitive Development Theory. Is this what you are talking about Jillio?

Piaget vs Vygotsky: The Cognitive Development Theory - Associated Content
Click to expand...

You can start there, rd. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but fall quarter is getting underway, and I've added teaching 2 classes to my schedule! It will calm down soon, though.

I'll look for some more sources for you. And, I want to commend you on all the searches you are doing for information.
 
jillio said:
You can start there, rd. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but fall quarter is getting underway, and I've added teaching 2 classes to my schedule! It will calm down soon, though.

I'll look for some more sources for you. And, I want to commend you on all the searches you are doing for information.
Click to expand...
Thanks and I appreciate your help when you get a chance.
 
I honestly thought this thread would get more responses. My interpretation of it goes against what some here believe in with the bi-bi approach. The Piaget vs Vygotsky argument is also interesting. Why would one experts ideas be more relivent than the other? It would seem to me that both can be measured imperically yet where are the studies and results. If it's true that the bi-bi model is superior, the where are the organized advocacy groups? Where are the studies that indicate this to be true? Is it really the best way or is it meerly another of many approaches to choose from?
 
rockdrummer said:
I honestly thought this thread would get more responses. My interpretation of it goes against what some here believe in with the bi-bi approach. The Piaget vs Vygotsky argument is also interesting. Why would one experts ideas be more relivent than the other? It would seem to me that both can be measured imperically yet where are the studies and results. If it's true that the bi-bi model is superior, the where are the organized advocacy groups? Where are the studies that indicate this to be true? Is it really the best way or is it meerly another of many approaches to choose from?
Click to expand...

If one views the BI-Bi aprroach to educating deaf children in view of the stage theorists such as Vygotsky and Piaget, there can be no doubt that it is the best. There are reams of empirical eveidence that supports the use of sign and speech together for academic achievement, and there are reams of evidence to support the social and psychological benefits of bicultural environments. It only has to be synthesized to be applicable to deaf ed.
 
I wonder if the problems with the current BiBi programs is not enough children get a first start in those programs? The majority of children enter these programs after using different approaches, especially the oral-only approach, only to struggle with them and then put in the BiBi programs. That would make doing a study difficult if that problem is widespread due to the language delays of the children?

I know that our program needs more children to start with acquiring ASL first and then learning English as a 2nd language but unfortunately, we get many students who learn ASL after the formative years of language development has passed so we have a very unique population of students. I think The Learning Center in Mass has a great BiBi program.
 
shel90 said:
I wonder if the problems with the current BiBi programs is not enough children get a first start in those programs? The majority of children enter these programs after using different approaches, especially the oral-only approach, only to struggle with them and then put in the BiBi programs. That would make doing a study difficult if that problem is widespread due to the language delays of the children?

I know that our program needs more children to start with acquiring ASL first and then learning English as a 2nd language but unfortunately, we get many students who learn ASL after the formative years of language development has passed so we have a very unique population of students. I think The Learning Center in Mass has a great BiBi program.
Click to expand...

You have a good point there, shel. When Bi-Bi is the approach used after failure of another method, it is being used as a remedial tool. That is not the intent, and therefore, does not allow the program to function as intended. It is like using a broom instead of a mop, and then concluding that the broom doesn't clean the floor as well as the mop. Two different tools meant for two different purposes. Both clean the floor, but one does a more complete job.
 
jillio said:
You have a good point there, shel. When Bi-Bi is the approach used after failure of another method, it is being used as a remedial tool. That is not the intent, and therefore, does not allow the program to function as intended. It is like using a broom instead of a mop, and then concluding that the broom doesn't clean the floor as well as the mop. Two different tools meant for two different purposes. Both clean the floor, but one does a more complete job.
Click to expand...
Does this suggest that the bi-bi route has a less chance of success if it is not used first? Please advise.
 
jillio said:
You have a good point there, shel. When Bi-Bi is the approach used after failure of another method, it is being used as a remedial tool. That is not the intent, and therefore, does not allow the program to function as intended. It is like using a broom instead of a mop, and then concluding that the broom doesn't clean the floor as well as the mop. Two different tools meant for two different purposes. Both clean the floor, but one does a more complete job.
Click to expand...

Yea, that is what has been happening to our program in the last 5 years. Only the students who have started with the BiBi programs and stayed with them are the ones that are performing at grade level. Unfortunately the number of that population is probably too small to be considered a sample for a study.
 
rockdrummer said:
Does this suggest that the bi-bi route has a less chance of success if it is not used first? Please advise.
Click to expand...

Well, if we dont get the students, then how can it be successful? About 80% of our student population were referred to us at a much older age and so delayed in language and literacy skills so it makes it difficult to make it as successful as it intended to be.

However, I think The Learning Center, MSD-Frederick, Indiana School for the Deaf have the stronger BiBi programs. I am sure there are other schools listed but those 3 are the ones I have had personal experience with in my teaching career.
 
rockdrummer said:
Does this suggest that the bi-bi route has a less chance of success if it is not used first? Please advise.
Click to expand...

What it means is that once the delays have been created by using, for example, an oral only approach, it takes more time, effort, and work to overcome the delays than it takes to prevent them in the first place.
 
shel90 said:
Yea, that is what has been happening to our program in the last 5 years. Only the students who have started with the BiBi programs and stayed with them are the ones that are performing at grade level. Unfortunately the number of that population is probably too small to be considered a sample for a study.
Click to expand...

Could be used as case study. Still relevent data.
 
Back
Top