National Society for the Deaf

[shel90]

As long they make lies like that, I find it strange they still want respect and approval from NAD and the deaf community. They might think we can't read?

I know..

 

[owen06]

What you are saying here is that it does not matter if deaf children know ASL or not. This correlate with the post Cloggy did on earth, sun and cued speech, where a board member of NCSA was known to state that NAD is irrelevant. Check the post here

http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/47663-sun-earth-cued-speech.html#post883516

You have to understand that what you say here correlate with what the hardcore oralists here, like Jackie and Rick, says when they state they have nothing against ASL as a secondary language or learnt later in life. ASL should not be the language deaf children rely on.

When you state that it's not good to rely on ASL for literacy, what should then deaf children rely on? A spoken language? A visual-oral method, according to AG Bell.

I am curious if you disagree with both NCSA and AG Bell? It looks like that here.

I have never actually said what I think personally, no one has ever asked. I am simply asking questions because some of the answers I am getting are condtradicting each other.

I never actually stated that I personally think that ASL isn't good for literacy. I was only trying to point out that the conclusions you were drawing from the quotes you posted weren't the conclusions I was coming to.

As far as the board member saying that the NAD was irrelevant, I don't think he/she has any thing to stand on to back up that statement. That being said, I also think that it was only one person, and sometimes people act and say things that aren't in line with the majority. People have their own free will.

I think that ASL is great when children get an accurate portrayal of it. I also think that unfortunately, because the majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents, the child doesn't usually have a great portrayal of it. It takes time to learn a new language, it's also especially stressful on top of having a new baby (in general), and trying to figure out and go through all the information regarding deaf children. I also don't think that it's realistic expect every parent to send their child away, regardless of whether it's best or not. As such, I think that these parents should have other options as well as being able to expose their child to accurate ASL (through someone who is fluent in it).

With regards to literacy, from what I have read so far, the ASL/literacy correlation seems to be limited to to children who have deaf signing parents. This makes sense, these children would have had an accurate portrayal of ASL from the beginning, something that a deaf child of hearing parents probably wouldn't have had. This is where I think the comment from the NCSA with regards to that it coming from.

shel90- I think it's quite obvious that you are all literate here, otherwise, how would you be able to post?

I don't have an answer as to which is best or which I think is best. Isn't that why there are so many debates?

 

[jillio]

So these are all recognized languages like ASL with their own syntax etc.?? Not something like SEE?

Yes, they are.

 

[jillio]

Where did it say that CS had to be the only method of communication?? I've been trying to read everything that has been posted in it's entirety, (by the way, thanks for the articles, I'm slowly working through them too) and I never saw anything that stated that CS should not be used without any other communication method. All that it said was that it could be used as the communication method for english. No where did it say that the people couldn't use ASL as another form of communcation. So I think that saying CS is oralism is wrong because it never says that it should be used as the sole communication method (which is what you say oralism is). I agree it is an oral method but it isn't oralism (at least as you are defining it here).

I am not talking about CS being the only mode of communication. I am talking about English being the only language of communication. CS is but a tool to convey English. English is an orally based language. Even in written form, its sytax conforms to that which is intended to received by the ear, not by the eye.

 

[jillio]

What you are saying here is that it does not matter if deaf children know ASL or not. This correlate with the post Cloggy did on earth, sun and cued speech, where a board member of NCSA was known to state that NAD is irrelevant. Check the post here

http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/47663-sun-earth-cued-speech.html#post883516

You have to understand that what you say here correlate with what the hardcore oralists here, like Jackie and Rick, says when they state they have nothing against ASL as a secondary language or learnt later in life. ASL should not be the language deaf children rely on.

When you state that it's not good to rely on ASL for literacy, what should then deaf children rely on? A spoken language? A visual-oral method, according to AG Bell.

I am curious if you disagree with both NCSA and AG Bell? It looks like that here.

 

[owen06]

I am not talking about CS being the only mode of communication. I am talking about English being the only language of communication. CS is but a tool to convey English. English is an orally based language. Even in written form, its sytax conforms to that which is intended to received by the ear, not by the eye.

but this is what you said before:

No, any method that uses an orally based language as the only method of communication/instruction is oralism.

You've got me confused. There still isn't anything in the CS literature that says that ASL can't be learned or used as a method of communication. They are only promoting CS as the mode of communication in English. Why is that a problem?

 

[jillio]

but this is what you said before:



You've got me confused. There still isn't anything in the CS literature that says that ASL can't be learned or used as a method of communication. They are only promoting CS as the mode of communication in English. Why is that a problem?

I have also often said that CS could be a useful tool in teaching English as a second language, but that it cannot be relied on as the only mode of communication for numerous reasons. And yes, it could be used in conjuction with ASL, but to do so is a bit redundant, don't you think, especially if you are approaching education from a whole language perspective?

 

[flip]

cut

With regards to literacy, from what I have read so far, the ASL/literacy correlation seems to be limited to to children who have deaf signing parents. This makes sense, these children would have had an accurate portrayal of ASL from the beginning, something that a deaf child of hearing parents probably wouldn't have had. This is where I think the comment from the NCSA with regards to that it coming from.

cut

The ASL/literacy correlations being limited to deaf parents is old news, from the sixties, and proved wrong a long time ago. You must have access to very limited range of paper if you didn't knew and thought this was true.

Correlative findings, for more than a decade, have shown that the deaf children who do best, are those provided with both ASL and speech. Parents beeing deaf or hearing have minimal importance. The ASL skills those parents have, is far from what you find among the ASL artists. This is mentioned more than once in research.

I question the reasons NCSA have to ignore those new findings, and instead claim something that was belived in the middle of the last century.

 

[jillio]

The ASL/literacy correlations being limited to deaf parents is old news, from the sixties, and proved wrong a long time ago. You must have access to very limited range of paper if you didn't knew and thought this was true.

Correlative findings, for more than a decade, have shown that the deaf children who do best, are those provided with both ASL and speech. Parents beeing deaf or hearing have minimal importance. The ASL skills those parents have, is far from what you find among the ASL artists. This is mentioned more than once in research.

I question the reasons NCSA have to ignore those new findings, and instead claim something that was belived in the middle of the last century.

 

[flip]

but this is what you said before:

You've got me confused. There still isn't anything in the CS literature that says that ASL can't be learned or used as a method of communication. They are only promoting CS as the mode of communication in English. Why is that a problem?

NCSA invite parents to ditch ASL, going against large numbers of research done on deaf bilingualism. ASL is welcomed, but not needed. That's the problem.

 

[jillio]

NCSA invite parents to ditch ASL, going against large numbers of research done on deaf bilingualism. ASL is welcomed, but not needed. That's the problem.

Bingo!

 

[flip]

Bingo!

To me it's like inviting someone to their house, and telling them that they don't have to come if they don't want to. Guess most people would felt unwanted.

 

[owen06]

Maybe you could be so kind as to give me a couple names of papers that show that poor ASL skills lead to good English. I would be interested to see how that works.

How is using CS to teach or communicate in English, and using ASL to teach or communicate in ASL redundant?

 

[jillio]

Maybe you could be so kind as to give me a couple names of papers that show that poor ASL skills lead to good English. I would be interested to see how that works.

How is using CS to teach or communicate in English, and using ASL to teach or communicate in ASL redundant?

To my knowledge, there are no such papers. No. You are confused. If one is already using ASL to teach English as a second language, then CS is redundant. ASL is a visual language, and English is already visable in print. You have to start thinking from a conceptual standpoint, which is broader and more global, than from simply an English word view. Try going to the Clerc Center's website. They have some very informative information on using ASL as a whole language approach to teach English as the L2.

 

[flip]

Maybe you could be so kind as to give me a couple names of papers that show that poor ASL skills lead to good English. I would be interested to see how that works.

How is using CS to teach or communicate in English, and using ASL to teach or communicate in ASL redundant?

For CS beeing redundant, check the reply from Jillio.

Want to add that Cued Speech also takes unecessary time from other more important subjects in successful bilingual bicultural programs, where students already have accecess to english through speech and ASL.

No one here is talking about poor ASL skills, unless you overrate the difficulty of ASL and have unrealistic demands on ASL skills in parents. Again, this was a common perspective back in the oral era of sixties, and left behind a long time by everyone(except NCSA?).

I would suggest you to get some copies of JDSDE or browse the free articles at Oxford Journals | Medicine | Jnl. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

"The implication of this research is straightforward and powerful: Deaf children's learning of English appears to benefit from the acquisition of even a moderate fluency in ASL.", cited by a research from Michael Strong and Philip M. Prinz, published in JDSDE(do a search there).

Or:

"The participants who had medium or high levels of ASL proficiency had correspondingly good English literacy skills regardless of the hearing status of their parents (Chamberlain et. al., 2000).", from Deaf Literacy / ASL and Reading

You can find this stuff everywhere in numerous journals and on the net everywhere, just ask if you need more help.

 

[owen06]

For CS beeing redundant, check the reply from Jillio.

Want to add that Cued Speech also takes unecessary time from other more important subjects in successful bilingual bicultural programs, where students already have accecess to english through speech and ASL.

???

No one here is talking about poor ASL skills, unless you overrate the difficulty of ASL and have unrealistic demands on ASL skills in parents. Again, this was a common perspective back in the oral era of sixties, and left behind a long time by everyone(except NCSA?).

I would suggest you to get some copies of JDSDE or browse the free articles at Oxford Journals | Medicine | Jnl. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

"The implication of this research is straightforward and powerful: Deaf children's learning of English appears to benefit from the acquisition of even a moderate fluency in ASL.", cited by a research from Michael Strong and Philip M. Prinz, published in JDSDE(do a search there).

Or:

"The participants who had medium or high levels of ASL proficiency had correspondingly good English literacy skills regardless of the hearing status of their parents (Chamberlain et. al., 2000).", from Deaf Literacy / ASL and Reading

Those two quotes are referencing/from the same paper. Also, if you are going to quote something please provide the citation.

You can find this stuff everywhere in numerous journals and on the net everywhere, just ask if you need more help.

If you read what I said carefully, I said that :

This makes sense, these children would have had an accurate portrayal of ASL from the beginning, something that a deaf child of hearing parents probably wouldn't have had.

That statement is consistent with the findings in the paper you suggested. Even in that paper, over half of the children in the study who had hearing parents, had low levels of ASL fluency (8-11 years)-21 out of the 41 students. Though fluency increased in the other age group (this could be explained by the fact that they had been exposed to fluent ASL models b/c of their enrollment in a residential school), the number of children is still high in this group-24 out of 68.

I never claimed that ASL in and of itself prevented literacy. I'm saying that hearing parents probably wouldn't be able to provide and accurate portrayal of it and that is what causes the problems later on. These children are fluent in no language at.

Learning a foreign language is difficult for anyone, especially later on in life and having it compounded on the demands of an infant. Expecting a parent to be able to provide fluent ASL, in a critical time period, is not feasable, not to mention extremely stressful--something that may be transferred to the infant.

"...deaf children with deaf mothers outperformed deaf children of hearing mothers in both ASL and English literacy, when ASL level was held constant, there was no difference between these two groups, except in the lowest
level of ASL ability."

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, 37-46.

The bolded part is what I think is the biggest problem and as such, I believe that there should be other options to help prevent the obvious delay that is occuring, whether this is done through cued speech or other ways.

 

[jillio]

If you read what I said carefully, I said that :



That statement is consistent with the findings in the paper you suggested. Even in that paper, over half of the children in the study who had hearing parents, had low levels of ASL fluency (8-11 years)-21 out of the 41 students. Though fluency increased in the other age group (this could be explained by the fact that they had been exposed to fluent ASL models b/c of their enrollment in a residential school), the number of children is still high in this group-24 out of 68.

I never claimed that ASL in and of itself prevented literacy. I'm saying that hearing parents probably wouldn't be able to provide and accurate portrayal of it and that is what causes the problems later on. These children are fluent in no language at.

Learning a foreign language is difficult for anyone, especially later on in life and having it compounded on the demands of an infant. Expecting a parent to be able to provide fluent ASL, in a critical time period, is not feasable, not to mention extremely stressful--something that may be transferred to the infant.

"...deaf children with deaf mothers outperformed deaf children of hearing mothers in both ASL and English literacy, when ASL level was held constant, there was no difference between these two groups, except in the lowest
level of ASL ability."

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, 37-46.

The bolded part is what I think is the biggest problem and as such, I believe that there should be other options to help prevent the obvious delay that is occuring, whether this is done through cued speech or other ways.

I will need to access the paper from home so that I can properly respond, and show you studies regarding the deaf children of hearing parents who surpass the parents in internalizing the language of ASL, and therefore intuitively adhere to grammatical and lexical forms. In addition, numerous studies, again, I will have to access these from home, indicate that even minimal exposure to ASL assists in language acquisition and increases in literacy rates. Likewise, I believe this paper offered suggestions for overcoming the less than fluent use of ASL by parents, which you failed to quote.

The focus needs to be on the child, not the convenience of the parent.

 

[owen06]

I will need to access the paper from home so that I can properly respond, and show you studies regarding the deaf children of hearing parents who surpass the parents in internalizing the language of ASL, and therefore intuitively adhere to grammatical and lexical forms. In addition, numerous studies, again, I will have to access these from home, indicate that even minimal exposure to ASL assists in language acquisition and increases in literacy rates. Likewise, I believe this paper offered suggestions for overcoming the less than fluent use of ASL by parents, which you failed to quote.

The focus needs to be on the child, not the convenience of the parent.

My point was not to debate whether hearing parents can improve their ASL, my point was that the vast majority of them do not have adequate fluency. This is detrimental to the child if ASL is the route that the parents choose. Therefore, the overall focus is actually on the child, not the convenience of the parents. Once again, learning a new language in adulthood, to the point of being fluent so that you can communicate with your child, ontop of the stress/responsibilities of having a new child, can be detrimental to the child's health. This is something that parents who are legitimately concerned about their child's wellfare have to consider.

 

[jillio]

My point was not to debate whether hearing parents can improve their ASL, my point was that the vast majority of them do not have adequate fluency. This is detrimental to the child if ASL is the route that the parents choose. Therefore, the overall focus is actually on the child, not the convenience of the parents. Once again, learning a new language in adulthood, to the point of being fluent so that you can communicate with your child, ontop of the stress/responsibilities of having a new child, can be detrimental to the child's health. This is something that parents who are legitimately concerned about their child's wellfare have to consider.

Then perhaps we need to concentrate on ways to improve the fluency in ASL of hearing parents rather than devising more artificial systems for communication for the deaf child.

 

[flip]

If you read what I said carefully, I said that :

That statement is consistent with the findings in the paper you suggested. Even in that paper, over half of the children in the study who had hearing parents, had low levels of ASL fluency (8-11 years)-21 out of the 41 students. Though fluency increased in the other age group (this could be explained by the fact that they had been exposed to fluent ASL models b/c of their enrollment in a residential school), the number of children is still high in this group-24 out of 68.

I never claimed that ASL in and of itself prevented literacy. I'm saying that hearing parents probably wouldn't be able to provide and accurate portrayal of it and that is what causes the problems later on. These children are fluent in no language at.

Learning a foreign language is difficult for anyone, especially later on in life and having it compounded on the demands of an infant. Expecting a parent to be able to provide fluent ASL, in a critical time period, is not feasable, not to mention extremely stressful--something that may be transferred to the infant.

"...deaf children with deaf mothers outperformed deaf children of hearing mothers in both ASL and English literacy, when ASL level was held constant, there was no difference between these two groups, except in the lowest
level of ASL ability."

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, 37-46.

The bolded part is what I think is the biggest problem and as such, I believe that there should be other options to help prevent the obvious delay that is occuring, whether this is done through cued speech or other ways.

Like Jillio said, this research have nothing with how hard it's to learn ASL do to, but what surprising low levels of fluency a child need in the parents compared to what you, Loml and NCSA claims. The myth from NCSA that a deaf child needs deaf parents to become literate and bilingual is completely false as we see in this research.

Many parents can tell you that ASL really isn't hard at all, and actually a joy to use. What is common is that parents try AVT, Cued Speech, oral ed, mainstream programs, and when that fails, the send their child to a TC or bilingual deaf school. That's were the half of parents with low level skills in ASL come from. Those parents who don't bother learn ASL, don't bother about Cued Speech either.

Where AG Bell leave BiBi alone, and gives parents a different choice, NCSA actively contribute to stop bilingual education by trying to convince parents that they should not use ASL as a natural/first language with their deaf child. The rudely part, is that NCSA begs to be a part of bilingual programs, who have experience with, and help parents with early ASL. This makes NCSA much more hostile toward ASL and bilingual education than the dreaded AG Bell, to me.

Somewhere in this mess, NCSA is doing the dirty work for AG Bell.