Mother of 7 y/o Deaf girl

[zeefour]

I'm not saying SEE cant be used as a tool ti SUPPLEMENT ASL and written/even spoken English, I said as much on my first post . I'm saying it is NOT a naturally evolved language and it should NOT be used as a L1 for Deaf children.

"Because unlike manual forms of English ASL is a naturally-evolved language, it is important for children who use SEE to have opportunities to learn ASL as well."

SEE cannot be an L1 because it is NOT a language it is a manufactured signing system.

I've talked to other Deaf/HoH teachers about this conversation. The consesus is its concerning you are a TOD. You either believe SE and SEE are natural languages a la Deaf ed in the 1980s and 90s and havent been learning new methods as Deaf ed evolves or you realize they should be supplements to actual languages and you either believe English is superior to ASL and/or that you're being defensive your out dated method. Hearing people saying SEE is better than ASL.. color me shocked.

It all comes from the old but still prevelent idea that hearing people know whats best for us Deaf/HoHis

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

I'm not saying SEE cant be used as a tool ti SUPPLEMENT ASL and written/even spoken English, I said as much on my first post . I'm saying it is NOT a naturally evolved language and it should NOT be used as a L1 for Deaf children.

"Because unlike manual forms of English ASL is a naturally-evolved language, it is important for children who use SEE to have opportunities to learn ASL as well."

SEE cannot be an L1 because it is NOT a language it is a manufactured signing system.

I've talked to other Deaf/HoH teachers about this conversation. The consesus is its concerning you are a TOD. You either believe SE and SEE are natural languages a la Deaf ed in the 1980s and 90s and havent been learning new methods as Deaf ed evolves or you realize they should be supplements to actual languages and you either believe English is superior to ASL and/or that you're being defensive your out dated method. Hearing people saying SEE is better than ASL.. color me shocked.

It all comes from the old but still prevelent idea that hearing people know whats best for us Deaf/HoHis

SEE is a visual form of English. I do not know or use either version of SEE. I simply said it is a complete language because that language is English. English can be acquired as a deaf child's L1, either through listening, Cued Speech or spoken language paired with a signed version of English. I certainly never said that English is superior to ASL. As I said, I don't and have never used any signed version of English.

 

[zeefour]

SEE is a visual form of English. I do not know or use either version of SEE. I simply said it is a complete language because that language is English. English can be acquired as a deaf child's L1, either through listening, Cued Speech or spoken language paired with a signed version of English. I certainly never said that English is superior to ASL. As I said, I don't and have never used any signed version of English.

Gahhhhh no it can't!!!! Signed English cannot be a proper L1 for a completely prelingually Deaf child.

Cued speech only works for HoH children (trust me I'm HoH and that's what I was exposed to in the 90s) The only way it can is if the child lost their hearing after being exposed to spoken English, or if they have residual hearing, or if they're unilateral. They need to have some previous exposure to spoken English for English to be their L1. Pushing SE as an L1 is absurd. It only works for a small minority and the results are a much lower literacy level because children's language development is stunted. You keep bringing up examples of how it works for children with some hearing. I'm talking about DEAF children. ASL as a L1 works for all Deaf/HoH children. Yes then English can be taught later, written for Deaf children, spoken with Cued English for HoH if they want. Their English acquistion will be at a much higher level if taught as an L2 if they have ASL as an L1 because it's a full language that is accessible to almost all Deaf/HoH children (DeafBlind and other special needs aside).

Your insistence on this outdated, incorrect method is part of the reason the average reading level for Deaf adults in the US is 3rd grade. D/HH children and adults DESERVE better. And research and practice shows that's being exposed to an actual L1, a proper sign language, be it ASL, BSL, etc.

But I guess Deaf/HoH are only "acceptable" to you if we use English. It's REALLY off putting for a hearing "teacher" to come here touting the virtues of English as superior to ASL/other sign languages. Seriously I'm really worried that you're a TOD. I'd be interested in speaking with your supervisor about their curriculum and policies.

 

[rockymountainmama]

Wow, I missed a lot here!

@Teacherofthedeaf thank you for sharing your beliefs. I have to agree with @zeefour however. I'm currently the Special Education Coordinator for our school district. I previously was the head of Deaf Education in another larger city school district after I taught Special Education at the designated middle school for Deaf/HoH students in our district. Prior to that I was an educational interpreter. I have my A.A. in Educational Interpreting, my B.A. in Early Childhood Special Education and my M.A. in Deaf/HoH Education and a Special Education Director licensure. I'm hearing but my daughter is Deaf, she was born profoundly Deaf and I raised her with ASL as her L1. My younger daughter, 2 years younger than her sister, was raised bilingually.

I understand that signed English can have a place in today's Deaf and HoH education. I don't believe it should be used as an L1 with prelingually Deaf children. In our state TC is the official model. However there's been a huge move towards a generally bilingual model as a focus on most Deaf student's IEPs. SE is used more with HoH children and the handful of postlingually Deaf children.

Thanks for all the welcomes!!

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Gahhhhh no it can't!!!! Signed English cannot be a proper L1 for a completely prelingually Deaf child.

Cued speech only works for HoH children (trust me I'm HoH and that's what I was exposed to in the 90s) The only way it can is if the child lost their hearing after being exposed to spoken English, or if they have residual hearing, or if they're unilateral. They need to have some previous exposure to spoken English for English to be their L1. Pushing SE as an L1 is absurd. It only works for a small minority and the results are a much lower literacy level because children's language development is stunted. You keep bringing up examples of how it works for children with some hearing. I'm talking about DEAF children. ASL as a L1 works for all Deaf/HoH children. Yes then English can be taught later, written for Deaf children, spoken with Cued English for HoH if they want. Their English acquistion will be at a much higher level if taught as an L2 if they have ASL as an L1 because it's a full language that is accessible to almost all Deaf/HoH children (DeafBlind and other special needs aside).

Your insistence on this outdated, incorrect method is part of the reason the average reading level for Deaf adults in the US is 3rd grade. D/HH children and adults DESERVE better. And research and practice shows that's being exposed to an actual L1, a proper sign language, be it ASL, BSL, etc.

But I guess Deaf/HoH are only "acceptable" to you if we use English. It's REALLY off putting for a hearing "teacher" to come here touting the virtues of English as superior to ASL/other sign languages. Seriously I'm really worried that you're a TOD. I'd be interested in speaking with your supervisor about their curriculum and policies.

You keep making sweeping statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. Show me the research that says the things you are claiming.
Nearly all children with hearing loss can be aided (hearing aid or CI) to well within the spoken language "speech banana". Profound loss to mild, they can have the same access to spoken language.
I know a family who chose Cued Speech and were extremely successful (their children were reading at 3 and 4) with a profound hearing loss and no amplification.
As for reading levels, the research shows that children who use listening and spoken language exclusively have better reading outcomes than those who use sign (Geers 2017)

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Wow, I missed a lot here!

@Teacherofthedeaf thank you for sharing your beliefs. I have to agree with @zeefour however. I'm currently the Special Education Coordinator for our school district. I previously was the head of Deaf Education in another larger city school district after I taught Special Education at the designated middle school for Deaf/HoH students in our district. Prior to that I was an educational interpreter. I have my A.A. in Educational Interpreting, my B.A. in Early Childhood Special Education and my M.A. in Deaf/HoH Education and a Special Education Director licensure. I'm hearing but my daughter is Deaf, she was born profoundly Deaf and I raised her with ASL as her L1. My younger daughter, 2 years younger than her sister, was raised bilingually.

I understand that signed English can have a place in today's Deaf and HoH education. I don't believe it should be used as an L1 with prelingually Deaf children. In our state TC is the official model. However there's been a huge move towards a generally bilingual model as a focus on most Deaf student's IEPs. SE is used more with HoH children and the handful of postlingually Deaf children.

Thanks for all the welcomes!!

And my BA is in Deaf Education and my MS is in Deaf Education. I hold teaching licensure in two states in Deaf Education birth to 21, as well as being a developmental therapist-hearing (Early Intervention provider) and am certified by the Council on the Education of the Deaf. I am also currently finishing up my certification as a Listening and Spoken Language Specialist certified Auditory-Verbal Educator (AvEd). I begin my doctoral program this summer.

I have seen every methodology be successful with particular people and every one fail students.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Gahhhhh no it can't!!!! Signed English cannot be a proper L1 for a completely prelingually Deaf child.

Cued speech only works for HoH children (trust me I'm HoH and that's what I was exposed to in the 90s) The only way it can is if the child lost their hearing after being exposed to spoken English, or if they have residual hearing, or if they're unilateral. They need to have some previous exposure to spoken English for English to be their L1. Pushing SE as an L1 is absurd. It only works for a small minority and the results are a much lower literacy level because children's language development is stunted. You keep bringing up examples of how it works for children with some hearing. I'm talking about DEAF children. ASL as a L1 works for all Deaf/HoH children. Yes then English can be taught later, written for Deaf children, spoken with Cued English for HoH if they want. Their English acquistion will be at a much higher level if taught as an L2 if they have ASL as an L1 because it's a full language that is accessible to almost all Deaf/HoH children (DeafBlind and other special needs aside).

Your insistence on this outdated, incorrect method is part of the reason the average reading level for Deaf adults in the US is 3rd grade. D/HH children and adults DESERVE better. And research and practice shows that's being exposed to an actual L1, a proper sign language, be it ASL, BSL, etc.

But I guess Deaf/HoH are only "acceptable" to you if we use English. It's REALLY off putting for a hearing "teacher" to come here touting the virtues of English as superior to ASL/other sign languages. Seriously I'm really worried that you're a TOD. I'd be interested in speaking with your supervisor about their curriculum and policies.

I have never said anything about English being superior to ASL. I have also said repeatedly that I do not know or use, nor have I ever, any version of signed English.
As for my supervisor, my school's policy for language use is very specific. We use spoken language, through listening so that our students will transition to a mainstream placement to learn alongside hearing children from their communities. Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers.

 

[zeefour]

"Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers. "

I have never said anything about English being superior to ASL. I have also said repeatedly that I do not know or use, nor have I ever, any version of signed English.
As for my supervisor, my school's policy for language use is very specific. We use spoken language, through listening so that our students will transition to a mainstream placement to learn alongside hearing children from their communities. Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers.

You are saying Deaf students cannot be competitive with hearing students using ASL. You're saying THEY CANNOT LEARN TO THINK WITH SIGN LANGUAGE. What.the.f......

I just... can't. Really. You horrify me. Did you get your degrees in the 1960s-80s? Because those decades called, they want their oralism extremists back. Do you tie kids hands together so they can't sign? Force CIs and hearing aids on profoundly Deaf students and push verbal language on them at the detriment of their self esteem, their identity, their culture? Did you work in a residential school 50 years ago? Really I'm curious. Because you realize that entire philosophy fell apart BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK. It was one thing when you were saying signed English can teach kids... but now you show your true colors just like I thought, that you are an oralist.

Why did you get into Deaf education if you just want Deaf kids to be hearing like you?????

 

[zeefour]

I have never said anything about English being superior to ASL. I have also said repeatedly that I do not know or use, nor have I ever, any version of signed English.
As for my supervisor, my school's policy for language use is very specific. We use spoken language, through listening so that our students will transition to a mainstream placement to learn alongside hearing children from their communities. Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers.

And you don't even sign?????????!!!?!?!? Not even signed English? Wow. No wonder you won't listen to me, you don't think Deaf/HoH people who sign are at the intellectual level of those who speak English.

 

[deafdyke]

"Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers. "


You are saying Deaf students cannot be competitive with hearing students using ASL. You're saying THEY CANNOT LEARN TO THINK WITH SIGN LANGUAGE. What.the.f......

I just... can't. Really. You horrify me. Did you get your degrees in the 1960s-80s? Because those decades called, they want their oralism extremists back. Do you tie kids hands together so they can't sign? Force CIs and hearing aids on profoundly Deaf students and push verbal language on them at the detriment of their self esteem, their identity, their culture? Did you work in a residential school 50 years ago? Really I'm curious. Because you realize that entire philosophy fell apart BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK. It was one thing when you were saying signed English can teach kids... but now you show your true colors just like I thought, that you are an oralist.

Why did you get into Deaf education if you just want Deaf kids to be hearing like you?????

Most likely b/c she thinks making Deaf kids function just like hearing kids is SO innovative, and she romanticizes the value of speech only. People like these tend not to understand that speech only is NOT innovative and that it's NOT a ticket to fully belonging in the hearing world or a better education. They tend to have a superfical understanding of the complex issues dhh kids encounter. Also some people tend to have a hate on about particular approaches b/c they got upset that it wasn't absolutely perfect, and so went over to the other side b/c they think in a black and white way.

 

[deafdyke]

You keep making sweeping statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. Show me the research that says the things you are claiming.
Nearly all children with hearing loss can be aided (hearing aid or CI) to well within the spoken language "speech banana". Profound loss to mild, they can have the same access to spoken language.
I know a family who chose Cued Speech and were extremely successful (their children were reading at 3 and 4) with a profound hearing loss and no amplification.
As for reading levels, the research shows that children who use listening and spoken language exclusively have better reading outcomes than those who use sign (Geers 2017)

They are still at best HOH. They are NOT hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. HOH kids still have spoken language delays and may have lower verbal IQs, which REALLY measure mastery of language. Also Ann Geers is BIASED. She was claiming the same thing in the '80's. Do you know how to analyze research for bias? You obviously are not aware that Geers is VERY biased. If you had quoted a nonbiased reseacher, I'd take that seriously. But using Geers, Moog, Flexor is like using a quote from an Islam apologist from ISIS to prove the Koran is 100% in favor of killing infidels.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

"Our school teaches deaf children to listen and speak without the use of sign language. We support children with hearing loss to develop the spoken language, listening, thinking and learning skills necessary to compete alongside their hearing peers. "


You are saying Deaf students cannot be competitive with hearing students using ASL. You're saying THEY CANNOT LEARN TO THINK WITH SIGN LANGUAGE. What.the.f......

I just... can't. Really. You horrify me. Did you get your degrees in the 1960s-80s? Because those decades called, they want their oralism extremists back. Do you tie kids hands together so they can't sign? Force CIs and hearing aids on profoundly Deaf students and push verbal language on them at the detriment of their self esteem, their identity, their culture? Did you work in a residential school 50 years ago? Really I'm curious. Because you realize that entire philosophy fell apart BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK. It was one thing when you were saying signed English can teach kids... but now you show your true colors just like I thought, that you are an oralist.

Why did you get into Deaf education if you just want Deaf kids to be hearing like you?????

No, I'm saying that at our school we specialize in one thing, other schools specialize in other methods. Listening and spoken language does work. I see it every single day. The research shows that students who use listening and spoken language outperform those who don't. Does that mean that all children should? Absolutely unequivocally not. I do not force anything on anyone. I provide excellent services to families who have chosen listening and spoken language. If it is not working for a child, or if the family wants to add or change languages, I will fight for and search and connect them with the very best providers in that language as well. It is all about what works for an individual child and family. I am extremely thankful that there are great providers of bilingual bicultural education because I want families and children who need and choose that language to have skilled and amazing access and educational opportunities. I agree with the organization Hands and Voices and their motto, "What works for your child makes the choice right."

I also never said that children cannot think using ASL. What a bizarre statement. What I said was that we absolutely work on developing cognition and academics along with spoken language. Many people misunderstand listening and spoken language and think that we work on speech sounds all day, and that is absurd. Just yesterday in my classroom we were reading a chapter book and the concept of "the top of the sky" came up. We stopped and discussed how the Earth is shaped, outer space and the topic of black holes and dark matter came up! We talked about that as well and then wrote in our journals using phonemic awareness and invented spelling. My students are in pre-k.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

And you don't even sign?????????!!!?!?!? Not even signed English? Wow. No wonder you won't listen to me, you don't think Deaf/HoH people who sign are at the intellectual level of those who speak English.

No, I think that some people with hearing loss use ASL, some use Cued Speech, some use signed English and some listen and speak.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

They are still at best HOH. They are NOT hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. HOH kids still have spoken language delays and may have lower verbal IQs, which REALLY measure mastery of language. Also Ann Geers is BIASED. She was claiming the same thing in the '80's. Do you know how to analyze research for bias? You obviously are not aware that Geers is VERY biased. If you had quoted a nonbiased reseacher, I'd take that seriously. But using Geers, Moog, Flexor is like using a quote from an Islam apologist from ISIS to prove the Koran is 100% in favor of killing infidels.

I am very familiar with how to read the research, thanks. You don't get through grad school and into a doctorate program without many classes on research. If you have methodology issues with her research, I would be glad to hear them. How about the LOCHI study in Australia? That is a population study so there is no room for bias. They study 100% of the children with hearing loss. It showed that children who use Auslan with their CIs have, on average, 12 points lower on their standard score in language when compared to children who do not sign, all other things equal. That means they matched for age of implantation, parental education, the presence of additional disabilities, gender and so on, and the children who used sign language scored nearly a full standard deviation lower (15 points is a standard deviation).

I actually presented research on the outcomes at our school at the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention conference and will be presenting on additional research this summer. I read, understand and actually perform research.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

They are still at best HOH. They are NOT hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. HOH kids still have spoken language delays and may have lower verbal IQs, which REALLY measure mastery of language. Also Ann Geers is BIASED. She was claiming the same thing in the '80's. Do you know how to analyze research for bias? You obviously are not aware that Geers is VERY biased. If you had quoted a nonbiased reseacher, I'd take that seriously. But using Geers, Moog, Flexor is like using a quote from an Islam apologist from ISIS to prove the Koran is 100% in favor of killing infidels.

Oh, and the research from our school says that kids with hearing loss who start with us by 18 months, in fact, do not have spoken language delays. They catch up before age three and stay caught up. We measured expressive and receptive vocabulary as well as semantics, syntax, pragmatics and supralinguistics.

 

[zeefour]

@Teacherofthedeaf "I also never said that children cannot think using ASL. " Yes you did. You said that "without the use of sign language " you teach children to "think, learn, speak, etc." so that they can "be at the level of hearing children". You keep harping on that only speech and listening are ways to be at the intellectual and academic level of hearing children, which you are saying is much higher than Deaf children who don't speak. I went to grad school too (this stupid girl who signs) and I'm sure you learned basic logic. When you are saying all these things you are also attesting to a belief in the converse, in this case, that Deaf children who use sign language instead of speech are NOT competitive with hearing children and who will not be at their academic level. A little school called Gallaudet would think otherwise. You have heard of it right? I mean they only use ASL on campus so you might not have.

As far as research I have provided study after study. You keep countering with "research from our school says". You realize that's not valid right. Your school has a vested interest in proving that forcing Deaf children to speak and "hear" (I bet you believe you can force paraplegics to 'walk' and blind kids to 'see' too, but that's a different point all together) You're also using a small sample group with no control. It's not statistically valid, if anything it's anecdotal evidence... at best.

Here's more evidence, using proper studies, statistics and a wide variety of sources attesting to the validity of the points discussed. (Also to clarify, in all these "sign language" means an actual complete sign language like ASL or BSL NOT signed English, SEE 1, SEE 2 ,etc.)

http://www.deafed.net/publisheddocs/sub/970723e.htm

This is a great document incorporating numerous studies to explain the benefit of sign language as a Deaf child's first language. It also discusses how ASL is considered a real natural language from a linguistic standpoint while SE, SEE 1 and SEE 2 are consciously designed systems and inferior from a language acquisition standpoint.


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dcal/dcal-news/early-sign-expos

"The study showed that adults who developed sign language skills from birth had better grammatical judgement in BSL. Adults who reported learning BSL from the ages of 2 to 8 years found it harder to acquire the same language skills. The research has highlighted that learning both a sign language and a spoken or written language will be the most beneficial for children to make the most of their linguistic abilities.
A bilingual approach can maximise linguistic and cognitive skills to overcome any delays or difficulties due to deafness. The advantages of early sign language exposure in particular remain clear even with rapid advances in hearing aids and cochlear implants"

aka a bi-bi education that I've been advocating

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_for_the_deaf_students_in_classroom_learning

"The study showed that sign language is significantly beneficial language instrument for deaf students in classroom learning.

continued...

 

[zeefour]

@Teacherofthedeaf

Continued.,...

Here's a few points with the associated research from another site:

*CHILDREN WHO LEARN SIGN LANGUAGE MAY HAVE MORE BRAIN CAPACITY LATER, LEARN TO SPEAK SOONER, AND DO BETTER ON FUTURE IQ TESTS. (THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN, MARCH 1999)

*11-MONTH-OLDS WHO LEARNED SIGN LANGUAGE OUT SCORED NON-SIGNING PEERS IN LANGUAGE ABILITIES, STANDARD IQ TESTS AND VOCABULARY COMPREHENSION TESTS AFTER SECOND GRADE. (THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN, MARCH 1999)

*AN ANSWER TO THE COMMENT, “IF HE LEARNS TO SIGN, HE’S NOT GOING TO TALK”:
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT BABIES WHO LEARN TO COMMUNICATE WITH SIGN LANGUAGE ARE QUICKER TO SPEAK THAN THEIR NON-SIGNING PEERS. SIGNING CREATES A MORE VERBAL ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE BABIES INITIATE CONVERSATION ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT INTEREST THEM, AND THEIR PARENTS MORE CONSCIOUSLY REPEAT WORDS. EARLIER EXPOSURE TO SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION ACTUALLY DRIVES BABIES TO WANT TO SPEAK SOONER. (THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, JULY 3, 2001)

*HEARING BABIES SPEAK THEIR FIRST WORD, ON THE AVERAGE, WHEN THEY’RE 13 MONTHS OLD AND SPEAK TWO- OR THREE- WORD SENTENCES BY THE TIME THEY’RE 20 MONTHS OLD. IN CONTRAST, SOME BABIES CAN START SIGNING WORDS SUCH AS “MORE” AND “MILK” AT 8 MONTHS AND CAN BUILD VOCABULARIES OF DOZENS OF SIGNS WITHIN MONTHS. (THE BLADE – TOLEDO, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 9, 2001)

Here's more on the benefits of early sign language exposure and bilingualism:
"Research has found many advantages to learning sign language, including:

• Early first language learning helps facilitate, and may even be necessary, for learning a second language later in life.19
• Early exposed signers have better academic performance compared to late exposed deaf in a variety of areas,33 including better performance on:
  • tests of English syntax25, 33
  • reading tasks5, 32
  • written language tasks31
  • vocabulary26
  • overall academic achievement17, 29
• Even moderate fluency in ASL benefits English literacy for Deaf children.30
• Kids who understand more sign language, understand more English.35
• Kids who produce more sign language, produce more English.35
• Strong adult signers have better ASL narrative comprehension, and also higher English reading scores.7
• The experience of “speaking” two languages (like ASL and English) on a regular basis has broad implications for cognitive ability, enhancing executive control functions and protecting the brain across the life span.2, 9, 11
• Bilingualism may protect against age-related cognitive decline.4 With all else being equal, one study found the age of dementia onset for bilinguals was 4 years later than it was for monolinguals.

Common Concerns – Is it too difficult for young children to learn two languages (English and ASL) at once? Maybe we should just focus on one language to start.
There is a misconceived fear that teaching babies more than one language too early may cause language delays or language confusion or that the child may never be as competent in either of the languages as a monolingual child is in one. In fact, research shows babies know that they are acquiring two distinct languages and are able to learn them without language delay or language confusion. Bilingual babies are able to reach the classic language milestones on a similar timetable as monolingual babies, such as when they say their first word, when they can say their first fifty words, and when they say their first two-word combinations. There are a few differences though. For example, when counting the child’s first fifty words, the tally would come from a total of words produced in both languages. Young children may also show a language preference and use one of their languages more, however, this is not a delay in language learning, it simply shows a preference, which could change over time, and is often related to the child’s primary sociolinguistic group (for example, the language used by peer groups in school, or if one parent is home all day using one language with a baby, it will often be preferred over a second language that is used when the rest of the family is home only at night). It doesn’t make sense to take away any language to focus on just one. Early exposure of both languages is what is best for the child and will help the child to reach fullest mastery in each of the languages.23

Conclusion
The key to learning language and becoming fluent is early exposure and full access to a natural language.10 Babies are capable of learning any language, and multiple languages, from birth.6, 13Research shows there are many benefits to learning ASL, and the sooner you can start, the better. There are both linguistic and cognitive advantages to being bilingual. Learning both ASL and English from an early age will help the child to reach fluency in both languages. The best time to start learning language is now.
Sources:

1. Bavelier, D., Newport, E.L., & Supalla, T. (2003, January 01). Children Need Natural Languages, Signed or Spoken. The Dana Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39306
2. Bialystok, E., & Craik, F.I.M. (2010). Cognitive and Linguistic Processing in the Bilingual Mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 19-23.
3. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., & Freedman, M. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45, 459-464.
4. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290-303.
5. Brasel, K. & Quigley, S. (1977, March). Influence of Certain Language and Communication Environments in Early Childhood on the Development of Language in Deaf Individuals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 20, 95-107.
6. Brentari, D. (Ed.). (2010). Sign languages. Cambridge University Press.
7. Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. (2008, July 1). American Sign Language syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled readers: Bilingual and bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(3), 367-388.
8. Chen Pichler, D. (2016, Fall). Why sign with deaf babies? [Video Lecture]. Gallaudet University: PST 375 Language Learning by Eye or by Ear.
9. Chen Pichler, D. (2016, Fall). Bilingualism: Unimodal and Bimodal [Video Lecture]. Gallaudet University: PST 375 Language Learning by Eye or by Ear.
10. Davidson, L.S., Geers, A.E., & Nicholas, J.G. (2014, July). The effects of audibility and novel word learning ability on vocabulary level in children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int., 15(4), 211-221.
    
    continued....

 

[zeefour]

@Teacherofthedeaf

continued....


11. De Houwer, A. (2009). An introduction to bilingual development. Tonawanda, New York: Multilingual Matters.
12. Deaf Education: A new philosophy. Research findings at NTID. Retrieved 10-10-2016 from https://www.rit.edu/showcase/index.php?id=86
Krentz, U.C., & Corina, D.P. (2008, January). Preference for language in early infancy: the human language bias is not speech specific. Developmental Science, 11(1), 1-9.
13. Kuhl, P. (2010, October). Patricia Kuhl: The linguistic genius of babies [Video file]. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_kuhl_the_linguistic_genius_of_babies
14. Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15. Mayberry, R.I. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about the critical period for language. 16.In Marschark, M. & P.E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education Volume 2 (pp. 281-291). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Meadow, K. (1966). The effects of early manual communication and family climate on the deaf child’s early development. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
18. Mitchell, R.E., & Karchmer, M.A. (2004, Winter). Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138-163.
19. Morford, J.P., & Mayberry, R.I. (2000). A reexamination of “Early Exposure” and its implications for language acquisition by eye. In Chamberlain, 20.C., Morford, J.P., & R.I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 110-127). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Morgan, G. & Kegl, J. (2006, August). Nicaraguan Sign Language and Theory of Mind: the issue of critical periods and abilities. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(8), 811-819.
21. Newport, E. L., & Supalla, T. (1980). The structuring of language: Clues from the acquisition of signed and spoken language. Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Weinheim/Deerfield Beach, FL/Basel: Dahlem Konferenzen. Verlag Chemie.
22. Orfanidou, E., Adam, R., Morgan, G., & McQueen, J. M. (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(3), 272-283.
23. Petitto, L. A., & Holowka, S. (2002). Evaluating attributions of delay and confusion in young bilinguals: Special insights from infants acquiring a signed and a spoken language. Sign Language Studies, 3(1), 4-33.
24. Pinker, S. (2003, February). Steven Pinker: Human Nature and the blank slate [Video file]. TED. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate
25. Quigley, S. P., Montanelli, D. S., & Wilbur, R. B. (1976). Some aspects of the verb system in the language of deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19 (3), 536-550.
26. Quigley, S. P., & Frisina, D. R. (1961). Institutionalization and psycho-educational development of deaf children. Council for Exceptional Children.
27. Schick, B., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., & Hoffmeister, B. (2002). Theory of mind: Language and cognition in deaf children. The ASHA Leader, 22, 6-7.
28. Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive psychology, 49(4), 370-407.
29. Stevenson, E. (1964). A study of the educational achievement of deaf children of deaf parents. California News, 80(14.3).
Strong, M., & Prinz, P. M. (1997). A study of the relationship between American Sign Language and English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(1), 37-46.
30. Stuckless, E. R., & Birch, J. W. (1966). The influence of early manual communication on the linguistic development of deaf children: I. American Annals of the Deaf.
31. Vernon, M., & Koh, S. (1970). Early manual communication and deaf children's achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115(5), 527-36.
32. Wilbur, R. B. (2000). The use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 5(1), 81-104.
33. Woolfe, T., Want, S. C., & Siegal, M. (2002). Signposts to development: Theory of mind in deaf children. Child development, 73(3), 768-778.
34. Woolfe, T., Herman, R., Roy, P., & Woll, B. (2010). Early vocabulary development in deaf native signers: A British Sign Language adaptation of the communicative development inventories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(3), 322-331.



All this shows that bilingualism is the best for Deaf children. Their English literacy (written, read and if they want spoken/"heard" for HoH children with amplification) is higher when accompanied by bilingualism. So even if you're advocating for English use by Deaf students, bilingualism is the best way to accomplish this. Forcing oralism and only English stunts later literacy levels. You use anecdotal evidence of successful Deaf... actually deaf because you strip their association with Deaf culture from them without their consent at an early age, from your forced oralism are just that anecdotal. I was in elementary school in the early 90s and as a HoH student with amplification was subjected to such methods.

You could say I was successful. I went on scholarship to an Ivy League school, I have 3 bachelors, I started law school on an academic scholarship, was accepted to 2 grad schools and I'm currently planning on applying to Gallaudet for my masters in a year. However I know I was successful IN SPITE of the methods I had to use in school, NOT BECAUSE of them . A lot of Deaf/HoH students I know feel the same.

I'm curious if you ever really talk to Deaf adults about their educational experiences and actually listen (since you're so big on that). You seem to disregard actual Deaf people and Deaf culture. If you've done so much schooling for Deaf ed why haven't you learned ANY sign language? It's so hypocritical that you demand D/deaf children learn to talk and hear your language but you refuse to learn our language. ou also haven't answered my question of when and where you were in school. Your methods are pretty outdated, oralism is dying for a reason. Bilingualism still incorporates English language fluency, so I don't know why you're so opposed to this clearly successful method that allows Deaf children to CHOOSE later in life, they can stay in the hearing world, using English fluently, or they can be in the Deaf world fluent in ASL, or they can be active in both. I have a hard time being fully active in the Deaf community because I wasn't exposed to proper ASL as a child I used cued speech, SE and English like your students.

 

[peekaboo]

well said Zeefour!! I too was forced, didn't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

@Teacherofthedeaf "I also never said that children cannot think using ASL. " Yes you did. You said that "without the use of sign language " you teach children to "think, learn, speak, etc." so that they can "be at the level of hearing children". You keep harping on that only speech and listening are ways to be at the intellectual and academic level of hearing children, which you are saying is much higher than Deaf children who don't speak. I went to grad school too (this stupid girl who signs) and I'm sure you learned basic logic. When you are saying all these things you are also attesting to a belief in the converse, in this case, that Deaf children who use sign language instead of speech are NOT competitive with hearing children and who will not be at their academic level. A little school called Gallaudet would think otherwise. You have heard of it right? I mean they only use ASL on campus so you might not have.

As far as research I have provided study after study. You keep countering with "research from our school says". You realize that's not valid right. Your school has a vested interest in proving that forcing Deaf children to speak and "hear" (I bet you believe you can force paraplegics to 'walk' and blind kids to 'see' too, but that's a different point all together) You're also using a small sample group with no control. It's not statistically valid, if anything it's anecdotal evidence... at best.

Here's more evidence, using proper studies, statistics and a wide variety of sources attesting to the validity of the points discussed. (Also to clarify, in all these "sign language" means an actual complete sign language like ASL or BSL NOT signed English, SEE 1, SEE 2 ,etc.)

http://www.deafed.net/publisheddocs/sub/970723e.htm

This is a great document incorporating numerous studies to explain the benefit of sign language as a Deaf child's first language. It also discusses how ASL is considered a real natural language from a linguistic standpoint while SE, SEE 1 and SEE 2 are consciously designed systems and inferior from a language acquisition standpoint.


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dcal/dcal-news/early-sign-expos

"The study showed that adults who developed sign language skills from birth had better grammatical judgement in BSL. Adults who reported learning BSL from the ages of 2 to 8 years found it harder to acquire the same language skills. The research has highlighted that learning both a sign language and a spoken or written language will be the most beneficial for children to make the most of their linguistic abilities.
A bilingual approach can maximise linguistic and cognitive skills to overcome any delays or difficulties due to deafness. The advantages of early sign language exposure in particular remain clear even with rapid advances in hearing aids and cochlear implants"

aka a bi-bi education that I've been advocating

https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_for_the_deaf_students_in_classroom_learning

"The study showed that sign language is significantly beneficial language instrument for deaf students in classroom learning.

continued...

No, I said that what *we* do is teach children to think, learn and use language without sign language. If I taught at a school that uses Hebrew and not English, does that mean that I believe that children who use English don't think? Of course not.