- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,491
- Reaction score
- 2
Now I got it! Loml is a clever ASL activist. Wow, no one has been so succesfull with turning people away from an oral deaf education tool as loml on AD.
ROFL! QFT!
Now I got it! Loml is a clever ASL activist. Wow, no one has been so succesfull with turning people away from an oral deaf education tool as loml on AD.
With all due respect flip, I'm not sure I understand or agree with those statements. It looks like you are saying that there are problems with facilitating student centered learning in bi-bi and TC programs? Please correct me if I have mis-understood that. Also I think that each of those approaches can be considered teaching styles. At least with my limited knowledge I would consider them as such.
Education consists of much more than language. Requiring language in order to learn is a given. The purpose is to point out the fact that one size doesn't fit all in educational approaches which has been re-enforced by the information I have provided amongst other things. That is not to say that within a given program kids will or wont do well. There are successes and failures in all programs. Even kids within a specific program will advance at different rates. This happens to hearing kids too. The importance of language aquisition can't be understated but there is much beyond aquiring language that should be considered.
Personally, I like the idea of brain based learning. I also like the idea of fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style. I subscribe to the theories that suggest to use different approaches in order to stimulate the mind. One might even argue that could apply to learning language as well. To me fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style would be a true IEP.
I was speaking of Shel personally. I was commenting on her personal teaching style, and the methodology she uses. And shel does use mouth movements, and voice is used with English. So the student does have the opportunity to switch between the two and practice all skills.
No, it is not impossible to use mouth and lip movements with ASL. That is where everyone got confused, me included.
Let me get this clear, are you saying Shel only use lip movement meaning no voice with ASL during class and it is impossible to use both voice and ASL at the same time am I correct, is that what you both are saying all along? ...
I dont know how much of lip movement I am doing. My mind, while teaching, is not on it but rather on how to deliver the lessons to meet all of my students' learning needs.
It is impossible to give a correct model of either ASL or English when using both voice and signing at the same time. One of the languages usually ends up being compromised which is usually ASL.
Let me get this clear, are you saying Shel only use lip movement meaning no voice with ASL during class and it is impossible to use both voice and ASL at the same time am I correct, is that what you both are saying all along? ...
As far as I know... yes lots of deafies does have lip movements as they sign....
Yes most do. ASL is a visual signs and it represent of facial and lip movements.
Yes most do. ASL is a visual signs and it represent of facial and lip movements.
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.
A perfect example of the rigidity happened in my class today. Those who learned ASL later on (the ones from the oral programs) couldnt explain in abstract thoughts why the girl in the story did this or that but my students who were exposed to ASL first could. The late ASL learners can explain and answer concrete questions but when it comes to abstract questions, they need a lot of prompts from me before they understand them. They have a long way to go while my students who learned ASL first are performing just like hearing children regarding to the abstract thoughts.
Yes, it is great that they have oral skills but without a full access to language nor the opportunities to play around with language while young makes the capability to think abstractly difficult. That is why we see so many referrals of students in the 4th grade age range from the other programs. At that grade, the language delays become very apparent and the curriculm becomes extremely difficult for them.
Start them out young so they wont have this problem later on. That is my philosophy.
That is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Would love to see all deaf children have the same rights to equal access to education as hearing children to but if those oralists have their way, it is not gonna happen.
rockdrummer - I believe that a deaf child in a hearing family should be afforded the opportunity to learn/acquire the language of their family from the native users of their language, their very own family. Home is one of the richest enviroments for languae aquisition/learning.