CI--Deaf or Hearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beowulf said:
Isn't that what CASE is, a smorgasbord? English is its own language, and so is ASL. Why not leave well enough alone? :confused:
Click to expand...

What is this audist need to reinvent the wheel? And they are attempting to make that wheel square, so that it doesn't roll as intended.:lol:
 
CSign said:
I never said a child isn't capable of learning more than one language. I said they need a complete language model in whatever language or languages they are to become fluent in.
Click to expand...

Providing SEE will not guarantee fluency in English. In fact, it will more likely than not, result in that child not having native fluency in the only language they have.:roll:
 
Cheetah said:
CSign, I do see your point that SEE is a good representation of the Written/spoken English language. However, I am not convinced that it is the best method to teach a child English.

If your argument is that hearing kids learn English language by hearing the adults speak it all day long, the the only way SEE would be beneficial is if all of the adults use SEE while they talk all day long (including when they are on the telephone because we all know where the kids pick up the "bad" words... right?)

I propose that a natural language is the best tool for teaching English. ESL (English as a second language) is often taught in the native languages. Granted I am postlingually deaf (age 3), I have found the best method of teaching English is reading and writing over and over and over again with frequent feedback. I concede that this might not be the best method for ALL deaf children. I am not an educator nor do I have any children. so... I am listening to your arguments and I will attempt to keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Natural language is always the best. Especially when you are talking about a language that has developed syntax and concept specifically to address the needs of visually processing input. Signed English in any form does not do that. No matter how you spin it, syntax and concept are still addressing the needs of aural processing, but making an attempt to force visual processing.

This is not so difficult to understand. It is beyond me why so many hearing people have a problem grasping this. I think it is not so much a problem grasping the linguistic facts, but the need of the hearing to convert ASL into something that is more easily achieved for them, English natives. In the process, however, the needs of the deaf child are sacrificed. That just doesn't seem to bother many. Just so things are easiest for them.
 
What will work for teaching English (for reading & writing) with correct English grammar and spelling? If in the US there is no getting around having to use English for business, etc.
 
Jiro said:
I see that there's no convincing you otherwise because you must have conferred with experts and such on this subject which led you to decide on SEE to use with your son.

May I ask what is your SEE skill level so far now? and how long have you been signing for?
Click to expand...

Experts? I would suggest not.
 
Beowulf said:
There is a difference between a deaf child and a hearing child. The deaf child is not getting its needs met if he/she does not know ASL and has English instead.
Click to expand...

But the hearing parent is getting their needs met. Ironic, isn't it?
 
jillio said:
Absolutely. It just reinforced all the confusion.
Click to expand...

I had excellent English skills even before I learned SEE but it gave me the impression that ASL is visual Engish and that part I had to unlearn.
 
Gotta go run errands..will be back.

Csign...many Deaf have told you that SEE is NOT a language but you say it is so indirectly, you are telling Deaf people that they are wrong. As usal, those who aren't fluent in ASL has a tendency to say that SEE is a language. Interesting
 
CSign said:
Shel- it's already done. It wasn't created to take away from the Deaf. It was created in an effort to adress the fact that DHH students were having a difficult time mastering English. They didn't create it to replace ASL which absolutely has it's place in this world. Also, I've met a few of the individuals who were a part of the creation of SEE and they are not Audists. They value ASL just as much as they value English.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you have a very superficial and limited understanding of what audism is.:roll:
 
part of the idea of 'privilege' is not seeing it, as has been discussed before.

so unknown intentions are indeed a source of audism

who creates what? who funds what? think....

this I learned from Deaf people here: give d/Deaf students a chance from the very beginning with a true sign language that is naturally intrinsic to them - and there is little or no delay <any disability aside> or problem with mastering English.
 
Does anyone know of any studies showing the success rates of deaf children learning English by various methods? Especially any study that compares/contrasts the learning of English via ASL or SEE? I would be especially interested in a study where the researchers are independent (not having a vested interest in one or more outcomes).
 
CSign said:
Really Shel? Where exactly did I "tell the Deaf they are wrong"? Never said that.
Click to expand...

Are you using ASL as a communication method? No. You are telling the D/deaf they are wrong.
 
Cheetah said:
Does anyone know of any studies showing the success rates of deaf children learning English by various methods? Especially any study that compares/contrasts the learning of English via ASL or SEE? I would be especially interested in a study where the researchers are independent (not having a vested interest in one or more outcomes).
Click to expand...

There are several studies that have been done over the years, but I am not where I can access my research files right now. However, I would suggest starting with the Oxford Journal of Deaf Education.
 
Which deaf/Deaf/DEAF IS THE ABOVE POST REFERRING TO?

Someone taken a survey of ALL of them?

Is this not to be- reality driven? Computer screens-notwithstanding.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
drphil said:
Which deaf/Deaf/DEAF IS THE ABOVE POST REFERRING TO?

Someone taken a survey of ALL of them?

Is this not to be- reality driven? Computer screens-notwithstanding.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
Click to expand...

You have even less understanding of this issue than the poster we were addressing. You need to sit back and learn instead of posting irrelevant questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top