"Importance of Morphemic Awareness to Reading Achievement..."

deafbajagal said:
I know a few deaf adults who agree with you. They affirm that SEE helped them with reading and writing. But what I find to be interesting is that they all use ASL now.
I think SEE has some advantages for literacy, but not for phoneme awareness. More for word order. The main issue I have with using it is that it is SO cumbersome...and it makes it easy to lose the train of thought.

I won't lie. I do cringe when I see SEE in action...like a long scratch across a chalkboard...
Click to expand...

Simple - books. I have never used SEE nor any revised sign languages to learn English. I used books. So did my parents and I went far ahead of them and my peers in just short time.
 
Jiro said:
Simple - books. I have never used SEE nor any revised sign languages to learn English. I used books. So did my parents and I went far ahead of them and my peers.
Click to expand...

Me too. :dunno:
 
Banjo brings up a point in terms of linguistics...I need to think through it before I can give a good response. But basically that point shows that SEE is merely sight word recognition...which limits its.effectiveness to about the 2nd grade level...which explains why there's a major breakdown after that point in literacy...
 
one more thing to added - if parents are wiling to put in some time and effort to learn SEE just to teach them English.... why not put in some time and effort in books to teach them English and ASL for communication?

oh wait.... forgive me... is it because it makes your job so much easier since SEE is a "two-in-one" package - English Sign Language for communication and Written English?
 
Deaf Adults Reading to Deaf Children is an excellent resource that backs up your (Jiro) stance.
 
To be fair...we are doing a shitty job of making sure ASL education/classes are available for ALL parents. Sweden did it...parents were given ongoing support for it.
 
deafbajagal said:
Banjo brings up a point in terms of linguistics...I need to think through it before I can give a good response. But basically that point shows that SEE is merely sight word recognition...which limits its.effectiveness to about the 2nd grade level...which explains why there's a major breakdown after that point in literacy...
Click to expand...

in terms of linguistic viewpoint... you can simply look at immigrant children.

Both immigrant children and deaf children have solid language foundation to begin with... Both children are bilingual. Both can read and write. Both of their native languages did not interfere with learning English. But I'll let you ponder on this and I'd like to know what you came up with :)

IMO - I just find it unfair and frustrating that deaf children must use "special" method to learn English because hearing people felt "oh no poor them... so unfortunate to unable to hear anything to learn a language. How can they learn English without hearing anything??? We must not make them deaf and dumb like Helen Keller so we must make our talking visually-accessible."

um... we're not blind! we can read and we don't need to listen and talk in order to learn English. For deaf children who can hear with HA/CI... they don't need SEE to learn how to listen and speak either.

I'm the living proof that I didn't need SEE or Cued Speech in order to learn English and to speak English. and there are many more like me.
 
shel90 said:
No it is not. Language deficits can ruin a deaf child's life and can place them in group homes for life. I have seen it personally happen tooo many times.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a child already having aquired language and improving literacy skills. That is why I'm having such a hard time with people p*ssing all over this study. If you have a deaf child with a good command language why NOT use SEE to help them with their literacy skills?

In other words, I'm separating language aquisition with teaching literacy.


I agree with you that you wouldn't want to use SEE as a way to aquire language. It may have worked for CSign, but I have gleaned enough information on here to realize it won't work for every deaf child. We CAN and DO agree on that. However, I'm ONLY speaking of improving literacy skills, and, I just don't see where SEE can be a detriment to that.
 
Last edited:
deafbajagal said:
Literacy is a form of language acquisition, especially for deaf children.
Click to expand...

True. I've seem that over and over. But, what if you have a deaf child who has aquired a language, but needs to learn literacy. Couldn't you use SEE as that tool?
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Yes, it is. I'm coming at this from the perspective of a child already having aquired language and improving literacy skills. That is why I'm having such a hard time with people p*ssing all over this study. If you have a deaf child with a good command languagep; why NOT use SEE to help them with their literacy skills.

In other words, I'm separating language aquisition with teaching literacy.


I agree with you that you wouldn't want to use SEE as a way to aquire language. It may have worked for CSign, but I have gleaned enough information on here to realize it won't work for every deaf child. We CAN and DO agree on that. However, I'm ONLY speaking of improving literacy skills, and, I just don't see where SEE can be a detriment to that.
Click to expand...

because it's exactly like this... you don't use Spanglish to help Spanish children to build up their English literacy skill.

We are not blind. Literacy means READING... You don't necessarily need to speak or talk English to read English. That's why I have a big problem with Helen Keller movie. It's a very powerful influence on hearing people's preconception about deaf people. That explains why I always hear stories about people running to get braille for deaf people and why I encounter hearing people telling me that their deaf siblings are "deaf and dumb" when they actually meant they're just deaf :roll:
 
Oceanbreeze said:
True. I've seem that over and over. But, what if you have a deaf child who has aquired a language, but needs to learn literacy. Couldn't you use SEE as that tool?
Click to expand...

what about books? and writing?
 
Jiro said:
what about books? and writing?
Click to expand...

Sure. We're talking about tools here, Jiro. Different ways to teach literacy to a deaf child. It's not a one size fits all in my opinion. I'm not negating the use of books or writing. I'm just suggesting that SEE could be used as a tool to help teach literacy skills, that's all.
 
Jiro said:
because it's exactly like this... you don't use Spanglish to help Spanish children to build up their English literacy skill.

We are not blind. Literacy means READING... You don't necessarily need to speak or talk English to read English. That's why I have a big problem with Helen Keller movie. It's a very powerful influence on hearing people's preconception about deaf people. That explains why I always hear stories about people running to get braille for deaf people and why I encounter hearing people telling me that their deaf siblings are "deaf and dumb" when they actually meant they're just deaf :roll:
Click to expand...

I know you don't need to necessarily need to speak or talk to read English. As for your commentary on the Helen Keller depiction, you're right. I vehemently dislike the way Hollywood treats movies featuring special needs. I've always had a beef with that. I also fail to see how it relates to this topic.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Sure. We're talking about tools here, Jiro. Different ways to teach literacy to a deaf child. It's not a one size fits all in my opinion. I'm not negating the use of books or writing. I'm just suggesting that SEE could be used as a tool to help teach literacy skills, that's all.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as tool.. I see it as a handicap for hearing people.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I know you don't need to necessarily need to speak or talk to read English. As for your commentary on the Helen Keller depiction, you're right. I vehemently dislike the way Hollywood treats movies featuring special needs. I've always had a beef with that. I also fail to see how it relates to this topic.
Click to expand...

Helen Keller thing is most likely what influenced hearing people to invent bunch of failed and broken MCE system to teach English to deaf children because they probably could not fathom the thought of deaf children being capable of learning English without hearing/talking.

"We must make our speaking visually-accessible in order to teach them English!" How fallacious....
 
Oceanbreeze said:
True. I've seem that over and over. But, what if you have a deaf child who has aquired a language, but needs to learn literacy. Couldn't you use SEE as that tool?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not sure if it would be an effective tool to be used exclusively...as Banjo pointed out, it works up to a degree...then it falters as the complexity of literacy kicks in. I find it helpful to use with To Be verbs...are/is; was/were...etc. I do not agree with using it for communication purposes.
 
Some great points here, I have nothing to add since all the good points have been made!! I LOVED reading books as a young child, not so much now although I prefer to read facts, the news etc. I was a child that learnt to speak through English language.
 
Jiro said:
because it's exactly like this... you don't use Spanglish to help Spanish children to build up their English literacy skill.

We are not blind. Literacy means READING... You don't necessarily need to speak or talk English to read English. That's why I have a big problem with Helen Keller movie. It's a very powerful influence on hearing people's preconception about deaf people. That explains why I always hear stories about people running to get braille for deaf people and why I encounter hearing people telling me that their deaf siblings are "deaf and dumb" when they actually meant they're just deaf :roll:
Click to expand...

Just a little correction there. Literacy doesnt mean just reading only. It means being able to analyze what they are reading like doing a character profile, identifying the author's purposes of writing the stories, identifying the problems and solutions in the story and many more. That requires a strong command of language and critical thinking skills. One can read without having good literacy skills. Just means they read without forming a picture of what they are reading in their heads.
 
shel90 said:
Just a little correction there. Literacy doesnt mean just reading only. It means being able to analyze what they are reading like doing a character profile, identifying the author's purposes of writing the stories, identifying the problems and solutions in the story and many more. That requires a strong command of language and critical thinking skills. One can read without having good literacy skills. Just means they read without forming a picture of what they are reading in their heads.
Click to expand...

Good point! They can decode the words and have vocabulary, but doesn't mean they understand what it means when put together.
 
Back
Top