Mother of 7 y/o Deaf girl

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tristen said:
I was just in Colorado at the EHDI Meeting. We toured the Colorado School for the Deaf and Blind.

I keep thinking about becoming an interpreter. I'm learning ASL and want to get more involved somehow. Its amazing how our children can really ignite a passion in us to do more and become more in the field. I'm totally removed, I'm in finance at a newspaper/media company, so I'd really be switching gears, but I know I'd be passionate about it.

We are trying to teach Gemma ASL and English as well. Her preschool program at the Deaf and Blind school utilizes SEE, though. But I'm trying to stay open minded and just remember that just because she's learning SEE at school doesn't mean I can't teach her ASL at home. They have classes in ASL for her as she gets older. But they are an amazing school and have really helped us navigate the last two years, so I'm grateful.

We did genetic testing on Gemma when she was about 6 months old. My husband and I are both connexin 26 carriers. We were just curious to find out the reason for her deafness, just because we don't have any history of hearing loss or anything in our families. In hindsight, it doesn't really matter and didn't make a difference. I think we, like most parents, were just surprised and wanted to know all we could about our little blessing.
Click to expand...
How about being a TOD? That would be amazing! Just wondering, does the Deaf school also offer excellent speech services too? Would you reccomend MSDB to other parents too?
 
deafdyke said:
Yup, it's still popular. Still controversial too.
Click to expand...

I was aware of the controversy but not that it was still popular. I mean haven't all recent studies shown ASL based ed is far superior than an ed based on SEE and other made up systems? I forgot to add in my original post I also used to be the special needs liaison for the Head Start preschool in my area. I worked with a handful of HoH children and even for those with a CI we used ASL not SEE. Again I'm not a Deaf education professional specifically although that was what I studied in school. SEE was a lot more prevalent when I started college in 2006. By the time I was teaching in 2010-2011 at least in CO, I never saw anyone actively advocating it. Although at the preschool level we were still just teaching our Spanish speaking and our Deaf kiddos spoken English not reading specifically outside letters. I could see some places it still being used with older teachers who aren't going to change their whole teaching styles but I don't know how I feel about that unless again it's a POST lingual Deaf child learning to read or something.

@Teacherofthedeaf are you Deaf/HoH or hearing if you don't mind my asking?
 
deafdyke said:
How about being a TOD? That would be amazing! Just wondering, does the Deaf school also offer excellent speech services too? Would you reccomend MSDB to other parents too?
Click to expand...

If you were touring CSDB I'd definitely recommend RMDS. Waaaaaayyyyyyy better.
 
zeefour said:
I was aware of the controversy but not that it was still popular. I mean haven't all recent studies shown ASL based ed is far superior than an ed based on SEE and other made up systems? I forgot to add in my original post I also used to be the special needs liaison for the Head Start preschool in my area. I worked with a handful of HoH children and even for those with a CI we used ASL not SEE. Again I'm not a Deaf education professional specifically although that was what I studied in school. SEE was a lot more prevalent when I started college in 2006. By the time I was teaching in 2010-2011 at least in CO, I never saw anyone actively advocating it. Although at the preschool level we were still just teaching our Spanish speaking and our Deaf kiddos spoken English not reading specifically outside letters. I could see some places it still being used with older teachers who aren't going to change their whole teaching styles but I don't know how I feel about that unless again it's a POST lingual Deaf child learning to read or something.

@Teacherofthedeaf are you Deaf/HoH or hearing if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...
I have not seen any research that says that a bi-bi works better, I would love to see the research you have seen.

I am not deaf.

It looks like the graduation rate is only 60% at RMDS and only 10% of students are proficient in math and reading. At CSDB it is slightly better at 12.5% in reading.
 
zeefour said:
I was aware of the controversy but not that it was still popular. I mean haven't all recent studies shown ASL based ed is far superior than an ed based on SEE and other made up systems? I forgot to add in my original post I also used to be the special needs liaison for the Head Start preschool in my area. I worked with a handful of HoH children and even for those with a CI we used ASL not SEE. Again I'm not a Deaf education professional specifically although that was what I studied in school. SEE was a lot more prevalent when I started college in 2006. By the time I was teaching in 2010-2011 at least in CO, I never saw anyone actively advocating it. Although at the preschool level we were still just teaching our Spanish speaking and our Deaf kiddos spoken English not reading specifically outside letters. I could see some places it still being used with older teachers who aren't going to change their whole teaching styles but I don't know how I feel about that unless again it's a POST lingual Deaf child learning to read or something.

@Teacherofthedeaf are you Deaf/HoH or hearing if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...
Well sounds like Colarado at least has adopted bi-bi.....Glad you introduced the HOH kids to ASL
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
I have not seen any research that says that a bi-bi works better, I would love to see the research you have seen.

I am not deaf.

It looks like the graduation rate is only 60% at RMDS and only 10% of students are proficient in math and reading. At CSDB it is slightly better at 12.5% in reading.
Click to expand...

Bi-bi isn't just used in Deaf ed, it's proved very successful in all bilingual education, including hearing. Whether the child uses spoken Spanish or ASL, promoting fluency in a child's L1 from an early age (before age 7) then teaching English as a second language (L2) while increasing fluency of their L1 in a more and more advanced level usually by teaching all other subjects in the L1 including more advanced studies of the L1 itself. In other words, children from Spanish speaking families who have learned Spanish as the first language, will have more success if their Spanish language skills are expanded on, by teaching Math, Social Studies, etc. in Spanish, they learn higher more advanced Spanish by studying literature, grammar and writing in Spanish, and English is taught as a second language. The higher their Spanish skills become, the higher their English skills will be too. For Deaf children, it's important they've been exposed to an accessible complete natural language by age 7 aka ASL. If they miss L1 exposure by age 7 they'll gradually lose thee ability to master any language at all. On the other side, if they're taught at a continuously more advanced level and understand of ASL, then when they learn written English as their second language they'll have an equivalent level of mastery. It's all based on Chomsky's theories of Language Acquisition.

Here's a great study from the Journal of Deaf Education that not only includes it's own studies that support higher ASL fluency results in higher literacy levels but references numerous different studies that support the different components that make up the basis of bi-bi education. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/21/2/156/2404366 When I started college for Deaf ed in 2006 there wasn't a text book, paper or class that promoted SEE based education at the expense of ASL based education as the overall gold star of Deaf ed programs.


As far as the scores, I wouldn't depend on TCAP scores (CO Standardized Testing) They're very specific and want a certain answer for the reading tests. Schools with teachers who have been in CO for awhile know how teach to the test. A lot of the RMDS teachers are from out of state. I once failed my grade 10 CSAPS (what TCAPS were called when I was in school) because I provided answers that were outside the box. I got a 5 on both my AP Lit and Lang tests, a 36 on my reading ACTs (score out of 36) and a 770 on my verbal SATs (back when scores were out of 800). TCAPs are very controversial in CO especially among educators here.

Also I don't know where you got that 10% score because while your numbers are accurate on every place I've looked for CSDB results, everywhere I've found shows much higher proficiency on state testing for RMDS. If you look at other statistics, it shows vastly superior achievement at RMDS vs. CSDB. For instance 60% of students at RMDS have a 4 year high school graduation rate vs. 19% for CSDB (the number you left out). More telling is that CSDB's graduation rate is declining annually. 100% of graduating seniors at RMDS attend a 4 year college vs. only 11% at CSDB. Parent and student reviews also rank RMDS higher than CSDB. Even if you try to look at the raw TCAP/CSAP combined data from the CDE reports, there's one huge thing that you're not accounting for. Those test scores include the half of CSDB students who are blind/visually impaired. If I were a betting woman the VI/B school at CSDB has much higher reading/writing results that are pulling up the overall average. That probably says more about RMDS than anything if a student body that is 100% Deaf/HoH can be in the range of a student body that's made up of 50% VI students. And CSDB isn't a SEE based school. Their Child Find early ed programs are now all prioritizing ASL fluency first and while they're officially TC, ASL based fluency is promoted.

All that said, numbers often don't show the full story. If you looked at my test scores and success in university (I went on a scholarship to Brown University, I have three bachelors, a BA and a two BSs from CU Boulder, I started law school on academic scholarship at DU and I'm applying to masters programs) you'd say look at this HoH girl, she was taught using SEE and look how well she did, it's proof of it's success. It's anecdotal but I believe I, as well as a couple of my Deaf/HoH friends from our high school's mainstreamed program, all did very well in school. But our parents were all big believers in promoting reading outside school, had high academic standards, etc. I've always loved reading and started reading on my own at a pretty early age, without much or really any instruction. We probably would have done decently well no matter how we were taught. But now as an adult, I feel stuck between two worlds and I don't belong properly in either right now. What I've seen at RMDS is while integrating students into mostly hearing families, there's a huge promotion of confidence about being Deaf, which is aided not just by instruction but because almost all the teachers and staff are Deaf/HoH. Being hearing, it's something that is important to try to remember Deaf identity is something that is unique for each Deaf/HoH that they should have the right to decide on and be provided the tools to allow them to succeed with whatever they choose.
 
zeefour said:
Bi-bi isn't just used in Deaf ed, it's proved very successful in all bilingual education, including hearing. Whether the child uses spoken Spanish or ASL, promoting fluency in a child's L1 from an early age (before age 7) then teaching English as a second language (L2) while increasing fluency of their L1 in a more and more advanced level usually by teaching all other subjects in the L1 including more advanced studies of the L1 itself. In other words, children from Spanish speaking families who have learned Spanish as the first language, will have more success if their Spanish language skills are expanded on, by teaching Math, Social Studies, etc. in Spanish, they learn higher more advanced Spanish by studying literature, grammar and writing in Spanish, and English is taught as a second language. The higher their Spanish skills become, the higher their English skills will be too. For Deaf children, it's important they've been exposed to an accessible complete natural language by age 7 aka ASL. If they miss L1 exposure by age 7 they'll gradually lose thee ability to master any language at all. On the other side, if they're taught at a continuously more advanced level and understand of ASL, then when they learn written English as their second language they'll have an equivalent level of mastery. It's all based on Chomsky's theories of Language Acquisition.

Here's a great study from the Journal of Deaf Education that not only includes it's own studies that support higher ASL fluency results in higher literacy levels but references numerous different studies that support the different components that make up the basis of bi-bi education. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/21/2/156/2404366 When I started college for Deaf ed in 2006 there wasn't a text book, paper or class that promoted SEE based education at the expense of ASL based education as the overall gold star of Deaf ed programs.


As far as the scores, I wouldn't depend on TCAP scores (CO Standardized Testing) They're very specific and want a certain answer for the reading tests. Schools with teachers who have been in CO for awhile know how teach to the test. A lot of the RMDS teachers are from out of state. I once failed my grade 10 CSAPS (what TCAPS were called when I was in school) because I provided answers that were outside the box. I got a 5 on both my AP Lit and Lang tests, a 36 on my reading ACTs (score out of 36) and a 770 on my verbal SATs (back when scores were out of 800). TCAPs are very controversial in CO especially among educators here.

Also I don't know where you got that 10% score because while your numbers are accurate on every place I've looked for CSDB results, everywhere I've found shows much higher proficiency on state testing for RMDS. If you look at other statistics, it shows vastly superior achievement at RMDS vs. CSDB. For instance 60% of students at RMDS have a 4 year high school graduation rate vs. 19% for CSDB (the number you left out). More telling is that CSDB's graduation rate is declining annually. 100% of graduating seniors at RMDS attend a 4 year college vs. only 11% at CSDB. Parent and student reviews also rank RMDS higher than CSDB. Even if you try to look at the raw TCAP/CSAP combined data from the CDE reports, there's one huge thing that you're not accounting for. Those test scores include the half of CSDB students who are blind/visually impaired. If I were a betting woman the VI/B school at CSDB has much higher reading/writing results that are pulling up the overall average. That probably says more about RMDS than anything if a student body that is 100% Deaf/HoH can be in the range of a student body that's made up of 50% VI students. And CSDB isn't a SEE based school. Their Child Find early ed programs are now all prioritizing ASL fluency first and while they're officially TC, ASL based fluency is promoted.

All that said, numbers often don't show the full story. If you looked at my test scores and success in university (I went on a scholarship to Brown University, I have three bachelors, a BA and a two BSs from CU Boulder, I started law school on academic scholarship at DU and I'm applying to masters programs) you'd say look at this HoH girl, she was taught using SEE and look how well she did, it's proof of it's success. It's anecdotal but I believe I, as well as a couple of my Deaf/HoH friends from our high school's mainstreamed program, all did very well in school. But our parents were all big believers in promoting reading outside school, had high academic standards, etc. I've always loved reading and started reading on my own at a pretty early age, without much or really any instruction. We probably would have done decently well no matter how we were taught. But now as an adult, I feel stuck between two worlds and I don't belong properly in either right now. What I've seen at RMDS is while integrating students into mostly hearing families, there's a huge promotion of confidence about being Deaf, which is aided not just by instruction but because almost all the teachers and staff are Deaf/HoH. Being hearing, it's something that is important to try to remember Deaf identity is something that is unique for each Deaf/HoH that they should have the right to decide on and be provided the tools to allow them to succeed with whatever they choose.
Click to expand...
The problem with bi-bi education specifically with children who are deaf is that you are not using the home language and then teaching the language of the majority as a second language. With cultural and linguistic minority families, they already have fluency in the first language and are able to provide a natural first language. That is not the case at all for the 92% of hearing families who have no exposure to ASL before they have a child with hearing loss. In the first three years of life a child should be acquiring their first language. Hearing parents of deaf children do not have the fluency in ASL to allow natural language acquisition. That is why we can't use bilingualism with two spoken languages as a model for ASL/English bilingualism in deaf children.
 
zeefour said:
Bi-bi isn't just used in Deaf ed, it's proved very successful in all bilingual education, including hearing. Whether the child uses spoken Spanish or ASL, promoting fluency in a child's L1 from an early age (before age 7) then teaching English as a second language (L2) while increasing fluency of their L1 in a more and more advanced level usually by teaching all other subjects in the L1 including more advanced studies of the L1 itself. In other words, children from Spanish speaking families who have learned Spanish as the first language, will have more success if their Spanish language skills are expanded on, by teaching Math, Social Studies, etc. in Spanish, they learn higher more advanced Spanish by studying literature, grammar and writing in Spanish, and English is taught as a second language. The higher their Spanish skills become, the higher their English skills will be too. For Deaf children, it's important they've been exposed to an accessible complete natural language by age 7 aka ASL. If they miss L1 exposure by age 7 they'll gradually lose thee ability to master any language at all. On the other side, if they're taught at a continuously more advanced level and understand of ASL, then when they learn written English as their second language they'll have an equivalent level of mastery. It's all based on Chomsky's theories of Language Acquisition.

Here's a great study from the Journal of Deaf Education that not only includes it's own studies that support higher ASL fluency results in higher literacy levels but references numerous different studies that support the different components that make up the basis of bi-bi education. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/21/2/156/2404366 When I started college for Deaf ed in 2006 there wasn't a text book, paper or class that promoted SEE based education at the expense of ASL based education as the overall gold star of Deaf ed programs.


As far as the scores, I wouldn't depend on TCAP scores (CO Standardized Testing) They're very specific and want a certain answer for the reading tests. Schools with teachers who have been in CO for awhile know how teach to the test. A lot of the RMDS teachers are from out of state. I once failed my grade 10 CSAPS (what TCAPS were called when I was in school) because I provided answers that were outside the box. I got a 5 on both my AP Lit and Lang tests, a 36 on my reading ACTs (score out of 36) and a 770 on my verbal SATs (back when scores were out of 800). TCAPs are very controversial in CO especially among educators here.

Also I don't know where you got that 10% score because while your numbers are accurate on every place I've looked for CSDB results, everywhere I've found shows much higher proficiency on state testing for RMDS. If you look at other statistics, it shows vastly superior achievement at RMDS vs. CSDB. For instance 60% of students at RMDS have a 4 year high school graduation rate vs. 19% for CSDB (the number you left out). More telling is that CSDB's graduation rate is declining annually. 100% of graduating seniors at RMDS attend a 4 year college vs. only 11% at CSDB. Parent and student reviews also rank RMDS higher than CSDB. Even if you try to look at the raw TCAP/CSAP combined data from the CDE reports, there's one huge thing that you're not accounting for. Those test scores include the half of CSDB students who are blind/visually impaired. If I were a betting woman the VI/B school at CSDB has much higher reading/writing results that are pulling up the overall average. That probably says more about RMDS than anything if a student body that is 100% Deaf/HoH can be in the range of a student body that's made up of 50% VI students. And CSDB isn't a SEE based school. Their Child Find early ed programs are now all prioritizing ASL fluency first and while they're officially TC, ASL based fluency is promoted.

All that said, numbers often don't show the full story. If you looked at my test scores and success in university (I went on a scholarship to Brown University, I have three bachelors, a BA and a two BSs from CU Boulder, I started law school on academic scholarship at DU and I'm applying to masters programs) you'd say look at this HoH girl, she was taught using SEE and look how well she did, it's proof of it's success. It's anecdotal but I believe I, as well as a couple of my Deaf/HoH friends from our high school's mainstreamed program, all did very well in school. But our parents were all big believers in promoting reading outside school, had high academic standards, etc. I've always loved reading and started reading on my own at a pretty early age, without much or really any instruction. We probably would have done decently well no matter how we were taught. But now as an adult, I feel stuck between two worlds and I don't belong properly in either right now. What I've seen at RMDS is while integrating students into mostly hearing families, there's a huge promotion of confidence about being Deaf, which is aided not just by instruction but because almost all the teachers and staff are Deaf/HoH. Being hearing, it's something that is important to try to remember Deaf identity is something that is unique for each Deaf/HoH that they should have the right to decide on and be provided the tools to allow them to succeed with whatever they choose.
Click to expand...
Also, I don't accept the premise that somehow 90% of students at these schools are scoring below proficient on the standardized test for math and reading but are secret geniuses.

Also, that article is comparing early ASL users to late ASL users. Yes, if you are delayed in getting a first language, you will struggle. They are not comparing early SEE users, early cuers, early spoken laguage users and early ASL users. That would be an accurate comparison.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
The problem with bi-bi education specifically with children who are deaf is that you are not using the home language and then teaching the language of the majority as a second language. With cultural and linguistic minority families, they already have fluency in the first language and are able to provide a natural first language. That is not the case at all for the 92% of hearing families who have no exposure to ASL before they have a child with hearing loss. In the first three years of life a child should be acquiring their first language. Hearing parents of deaf children do not have the fluency in ASL to allow natural language acquisition. That is why we can't use bilingualism with two spoken languages as a model for ASL/English bilingualism in deaf children.
Click to expand...

Right but programs like Child Find (early intervention in CO for birth through age 3) are changing that. There are home aids that go in and teach families to sign. They do ASL storytime for infants and toddlers, things like that. There's a lot of effort in getting hearing parents and family members involved in their Deaf child's learning and life.

SEE is not a language. ASL is a language. There in lies the major difference. Children need to be taught an L1 early, and the way they learn for hearing children is the language spoken around them, and naturally acquiring it. Deaf children need to be exposed to an actual sign language, ASL, BSL, whatever, and they will naturally acquire it. Then their second language skills will be greater as well, in the case of Deaf children in the US it's written English. SEE cannot be acquired as an L1 it's a signing system. Spoken/written English can't be naturally acquired by prelingually Deaf children. SEE isn't necessary because when Deaf children are given the chance to naturally acquire ASL, they have much more success in acquiring a second language L2 as they grow up, without the need of SEE. SEE was developed long before people started to realize Deaf children who became fluent in ASL at a young age actually had greater success in acquiring written English skills, as opposed to Deaf children who were trying to be taught English as their first language by using systems like SEE, as opposed to the now debunked belief that ASL makes it harder for Deaf children to learn English. If you're an early SEE user, you were an early spoken language user and that means you were postlingually Deaf. Obviously different and I mentioned that in my first post responding. Those children are a minority in K-12 Deaf education. For prelingually Deaf children the main method of education should teach ASL (or any other actual sign language like BSL or LSF) as their L1 because it's proven that that will result in higher literacy levels and mastery of written English or whatever spoken language in a written form as an L2. SEE came about trying to teach Deaf children English as their L1 to read and write without using ASL, it was a good intent trying to say okay Deaf kids need visual signs to learn, but it was still off base. The problem is it's not a language it's a system based off of English, so the literacy area of the brain isn't activated the way exposure of an actual language would.

And no they're not secret geniuses at RMDS, just a school of children who are flourishing in an environment designed to foster their confidence as Deaf/HoH individuals and that most importantly makes massive strides to make sure family members are included.
 
Last edited:
zeefour said:
If you were touring CSDB I'd definitely recommend RMDS. Waaaaaayyyyyyy better.
Click to expand...
True but it still has potential. I thought the issue with CSDB was that most kids do not spend their entire school career there, but that lots of kids transfer in as a last resort. I know the preschool and kindergarten programs are excellent....When certain people *side eye* imply that deaf schools suck, it's not b/c of methodology....it's due to a BUNCH of different circumstances.
 
zeefour said:
Right but programs like Child Find (early intervention in CO for birth through age 3) are changing that. There are home aids that go in and teach families to sign. They do ASL storytime for infants and toddlers, things like that. There's a lot of effort in getting hearing parents and family members involved in their Deaf child's learning and life.

SEE is not a language. ASL is a language. There in lies the major difference. Children need to be taught an L1 early, and the way they learn for hearing children is the language spoken around them, and naturally acquiring it. Deaf children need to be exposed to an actual sign language, ASL, BSL, whatever, and they will naturally acquire it. Then their second language skills will be greater as well, in the case of Deaf children in the US it's written English. SEE cannot be acquired as an L1 it's a signing system. Spoken/written English can't be naturally acquired by prelingually Deaf children. SEE isn't necessary because when Deaf children are given the chance to naturally acquire ASL, they have much more success in acquiring a second language L2 as they grow up, without the need of SEE. SEE was developed long before people started to realize Deaf children who became fluent in ASL at a young age actually had greater success in acquiring written English skills, as opposed to Deaf children who were trying to be taught English as their first language by using systems like SEE, as opposed to the now debunked belief that ASL makes it harder for Deaf children to learn English. If you're an early SEE user, you were an early spoken language user and that means you were postlingually Deaf. Obviously different and I mentioned that in my first post responding. Those children are a minority in K-12 Deaf education. For prelingually Deaf children the main method of education should teach ASL (or any other actual sign language like BSL or LSF) as their L1 because it's proven that that will result in higher literacy levels and mastery of written English or whatever spoken language in a written form as an L2. SEE came about trying to teach Deaf children English as their L1 to read and write without using ASL, it was a good intent trying to say okay Deaf kids need visual signs to learn, but it was still off base. The problem is it's not a language it's a system based off of English, so the literacy area of the brain isn't activated the way exposure of an actual language would.

And no they're not secret geniuses at RMDS, just a school of children who are flourishing in an environment designed to foster their confidence as Deaf/HoH individuals and that most importantly makes massive strides to make sure family members are included.
Click to expand...
SEE is English. English, signed or spoken can be naturally acquired by children with hearing loss. It happens every day. Unfortunately, it takes three to five years to become fluent in a new language, regardless of who comes to your home to teach it to you. That means that parents will not be fluent in ASL in the early years to allow their child to develop a natural first language. Just as we have seen that children from linguistic minority homes do better when their first language is the language of their home, we should be encouraging families of children with hearing loss to use the language which they have the greatest fluency. The only way a child acquires a language is through exposure to many fluent models. How does that happen when a family knows only a few (at best a few hundred) signs?
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
SEE is English. English, signed or spoken can be naturally acquired by children with hearing loss. It happens every day. Unfortunately, it takes three to five years to become fluent in a new language, regardless of who comes to your home to teach it to you. That means that parents will not be fluent in ASL in the early years to allow their child to develop a natural first language. Just as we have seen that children from linguistic minority homes do better when their first language is the language of their home, we should be encouraging families of children with hearing loss to use the language which they have the greatest fluency. The only way a child acquires a language is through exposure to many fluent models. How does that happen when a family knows only a few (at best a few hundred) signs?
Click to expand...

Well SEE1 and SEE2 are Seeing Essential English and Signing Exact English, both are sign systems based off English. I grew up using signed English which is ASL signs in English word order. I was lucky I was exposed to spoken English as an infant before I completely lost my hearing at age 5 so I had a base to expand English on. But for a child born profoundly Deaf, SE isn't a language, it's a system. ASL is a full language that works in the brain to activate language acquisition. If you're only exposed to signed English, it doesn't work in the brain, and if a child isn't exposed to a complete language by age 7 they lose the ability to have full linguistic capacity in any language. That's the big problem with SE. Spoken and written English are full languages but SE is not. ASL is a full language. Hearing babies learn language by hearing people around them speak. Deaf child can best learn a language the same way, by being exposed to a full signed language. A signing system based off a oral language is just that, a system. Any linguist will tell you that SE isn't a full language the way ASL is.
 
zeefour said:
Well SEE1 and SEE2 are Seeing Essential English and Signing Exact English, both are sign systems based off English. I grew up using signed English which is ASL signs in English word order. I was lucky I was exposed to spoken English as an infant before I completely lost my hearing at age 5 so I had a base to expand English on. But for a child born profoundly Deaf, SE isn't a language, it's a system. ASL is a full language that works in the brain to activate language acquisition. If you're only exposed to signed English, it doesn't work in the brain, and if a child isn't exposed to a complete language by age 7 they lose the ability to have full linguistic capacity in any language. That's the big problem with SE. Spoken and written English are full languages but SE is not. ASL is a full language. Hearing babies learn language by hearing people around them speak. Deaf child can best learn a language the same way, by being exposed to a full signed language. A signing system based off a oral language is just that, a system. Any linguist will tell you that SE isn't a full language the way ASL is.
Click to expand...

But isn't SEE the signed version of a full language — English? Giving us spoken, written and signed as all versions of the same language?
 
Jane B. said:
But isn't SEE the signed version of a full language — English? Giving us spoken, written and signed as all versions of the same language?
Click to expand...

You would think but linguistically in the brain it's not. As far as what a complete sign language incorporates, signed English doesn't have those things. There's no special grammar, syntax, etc. If you just use signed English with a Deaf child and nothing else it doesn't work in the brain as being exposed to a full language. ASL (or BSL or any other actual sign language) does. There's been so many studies and research that every educator I've worked with, class I've taken and book I've read (as long as it's not written before the 90s lol) supports this.
 
zeefour said:
You would think but linguistically in the brain it's not. As far as what a complete sign language incorporates, signed English doesn't have those things. There's no special grammar, syntax, etc. If you just use signed English with a Deaf child and nothing else it doesn't work in the brain as being exposed to a full language. ASL (or BSL or any other actual sign language) does. There's been so many studies and research that every educator I've worked with, class I've taken and book I've read (as long as it's not written before the 90s lol) supports this.
Click to expand...

Why does the grammar, syntax, etc. have to be special?

How about links to some off those recent studies, etc.?
 
zeefour said:
Well SEE1 and SEE2 are Seeing Essential English and Signing Exact English, both are sign systems based off English. I grew up using signed English which is ASL signs in English word order. I was lucky I was exposed to spoken English as an infant before I completely lost my hearing at age 5 so I had a base to expand English on. But for a child born profoundly Deaf, SE isn't a language, it's a system. ASL is a full language that works in the brain to activate language acquisition. If you're only exposed to signed English, it doesn't work in the brain, and if a child isn't exposed to a complete language by age 7 they lose the ability to have full linguistic capacity in any language. That's the big problem with SE. Spoken and written English are full languages but SE is not. ASL is a full language. Hearing babies learn language by hearing people around them speak. Deaf child can best learn a language the same way, by being exposed to a full signed language. A signing system based off a oral language is just that, a system. Any linguist will tell you that SE isn't a full language the way ASL is.
Click to expand...
That is because it is meant to be used in conjunction with spoken an written English. Do you have any research that shows that SEE (1 or 2) is not processed as a language in the brain? I have not see that information.
 
zeefour said:
You would think but linguistically in the brain it's not. As far as what a complete sign language incorporates, signed English doesn't have those things. There's no special grammar, syntax, etc. If you just use signed English with a Deaf child and nothing else it doesn't work in the brain as being exposed to a full language. ASL (or BSL or any other actual sign language) does. There's been so many studies and research that every educator I've worked with, class I've taken and book I've read (as long as it's not written before the 90s lol) supports this.
Click to expand...
There is grammar and syntax in SEE, it is the grammar and syntax of English. That is why it includes the morphemes like -ing, -s, and so on.

BTW, I don't use SEE, never have, don't particularly advocate for it, I just think that information should be factually correct when shared.
 
zeefour said:
I really just cant... this is factual. I know wiki in itself isnt a resource but look at all 30+ references at the bottom to start. Ill start uploading all my textbooks and syllabi later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Exact_English
Click to expand...
Nielsen, D.C., Luetke, B., Stryker, D.S. (2011). The importance of morphemic awareness to reading achievement and the potential of signing morphemes to supporting reading development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3): This is pro SEE.
Luetke-Stahlman, B (1990). "Can SEE-2 children understand ASL-using adults?". American Annals of the Deaf. 135 (1): 7–8.: This talks about kids who use SEE understand ASL as well as kids who used ASL.
Luetke-Stahlman, B; Moeller, MP (1990). "Enhancing parents' use of SEE-2. Progress and retention". American Annals of the Deaf. : This one shows that hearing parents can learn and use SEE well with their children.
Appelman, K.; Callahan, J.; Mayer, M.; Luetke, B.; & Stryker, D. (Spring, 2012). A Comparison of Post-Secondary Measures of Success When Students are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. American Annals of the Deaf. Volume 157, Number 3, Summer 2012. : This one says that kids who use SEE do very well.
Luetke, B. Nielsen, D.C. & Stryker, D. (2010). Addressing the need to develop morphemic awareness en route to reading English proficiently when students are deaf or hard of hearing; documenting; the unrealized, empirically-substantiated use of Signing Exact English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education: This one is pro SEE as well.
Luetke-Stahlman, Barbara (1988). "The benefit of oral English-only as compared with signed input to hearing-impaired students". The Volta Review. 90 (7): 349–61: This one says that kids who use SEE or spoken language alone do better than those who use Signed English or another signed language that does not encode English completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top