Oral school

[faire_jour]

From Gallaudet:

“Oracy” refers to fluency in a spoken language (i.e., the ability to speak and listen) and “literacy” refers to fluency in a written language (the ability to read and write). The term “signacy” is derived from the concepts of “oracy” and “literacy” (Baker, 2001; Bench 1992) but is used to specifically indicate fluency in a signed language.

 

[Cheri]

This was in reference to anyone who has the belief that BiBi programs do not put much value on speech. It has been brought up by other members way before u joined. I was making a general statement, not referring just you, fJ.

beliefs????


However, aural/oral training still exists in bi-bi schools, but it is held separate from daily classroom instruction.

Bilingual-Bicultural Education for Deaf Students

Conclusion

The bi-bi approach, though relatively new, has received much attention from professionals in the field of deaf education. More importantly, overwhelming support for a return to ASL in the classroom has risen from the Deaf Community. However, research in this area is limited. Therefore, a need for further research exists, especially in the areas of effective placement, methods, and evaluation. On-going assessment of current bi-bi programs needs to be widely available for others to examine and follow. Without such research, this promising approach could lose support and therefore fail at the sake of deaf children.

Bi-Bi does not spend time working on audition or speech. In fact, “it is felt to be morally wrong to impose on deaf children a language they cannot acquire, this, spoken language.”109 This policy can limit participation in hearing culture.

Bi-Bi Options

 

[faire_jour]

Here's more...

Students whose backgrounds included multiple facilitating factors were
competitive with and, in some cases, surpassed standards for progress by hearing monolingual students.

By taking a fundamentally different approach to the literacy dilemma, current
research has focused on improving inadequate methods by capitalizing on each child’s full linguistic repertoire (Nover, Christensen, & Cheng, 1998). This alternative paradigm considers linguistic, cultural, and educational implications more than the actual sensory disability (Charrow, 1981; Nover & Moll, 1997; Padden & Humphries, 1988). Supporters of this model have promoted American Sign Language (ASL)/English bilingual education to support the academic success of deaf and hard of hearing children (LaSasso & Lollis, 2003; Nover et al., 2002; Strong, 1995). Dual language methodology is not new. Indeed, the concept of using dual languages in deaf education has been available since the early 19th century (Kannapell, 1974). However, the dual language approach was discontinued during the push for oralism after the Milan Conference of 1880 and decisions by the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Program for the Deaf in the mid-1920s (Nover, 2000). A reemergence, evident in the last two decades (Johnson et al., 1989; LaSasso & Lollis, 2003; Strong, 1995), has created a change in teacher training options, as programs in France (Bouvet, 1990), Denmark (Hansen, 1994), the United States (Padden & Ramsey, 1998), and
England (Knight & Swanwick, 2002) have begun to see promising results. As
training options have become more available, the forward momentum continues.

However, ASL/English bilingual education has a fundamental emphasis on oral
skill development: oracy (listening, speaking, and speechreading) as a key
component within the bilingual framework, along with signacy (receptive and
expressive ASL, fingerspelling/ finger reading) and literacy (reading, writing,
and typing) (Nover, 2005; Nover et al., 1998). Contrary to common misconception, the approach does not ignore oracy; rather, it supports instructional delivery that separates languages, thereby preserving the complete linguistic code of any language used in the classroom.

DeLana, M., Gentry, M.A., &Andrews, J. (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English
bilingual education. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(1). pp73-87.

Even your own post shows that literacy is reading and writing and oracy is listening and speaking!

 

[Daredevel7]

NO!!! IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!! LITERACY IS SPEAKING AND WRITING IS READING AND SPEAKING IS LISTENING!!!

What's all of this have to do with oral schools?

 

[Jiro]

NO!!! IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!! LITERACY IS SPEAKING AND WRITING IS READING AND SPEAKING IS LISTENING!!!

What's all of this have to do with oral schools?

literacy is writing & reading though.... that's why there's statistic called "Literacy Rate" for each country. It's commonly understood that when you can hear and speak, your literacy skill will be better than those who can't speak and hear.

 

[Daredevel7]

literacy is writing & reading though.... that's why there's statistic called "Literacy Rate" for each country. It's commonly understood that when you can hear and speak, your literacy skill will be better than those who can't speak and hear.

I just picked random words to from fairejour's post (writing, listening, speaking, reading, literacy) and made a psychobabble statement (if you read it, it doesn't even make sense...). Hopefully, it did the trick to put the topic back to oral schools.. did it?

 

[faire_jour]

I just picked random words to from fairejour's post (writing, listening, speaking, reading, literacy) and made a psychobabble statement (if you read it, it doesn't even make sense...). Hopefully, it did the trick to put the topic back to oral schools.. did it?

I hope so!

 

[Jiro]

I just picked random words to from fairejour's post (writing, listening, speaking, reading, literacy) and made a psychobabble statement (if you read it, it doesn't even make sense...). Hopefully, it did the trick to put the topic back to oral schools.. did it?

lolololol that's what i thought so! dang it i should have stuck with my instinct.

 

[Cheri]

I just picked random words to from fairejour's post (writing, listening, speaking, reading, literacy) and made a psychobabble statement (if you read it, it doesn't even make sense...). Hopefully, it did the trick to put the topic back to oral schools.. did it?

Oh! I thought that maybe you didn't get enough sleep or something. lol

 

[Daredevel7]

I am cracking up! I can see everyone's faces when they read my original "cuckoo" post. "Umm, is Daredevel okay...?"

 

[deafdyke]

The kids in the public school seem to be behind, but that is because as soon as they reach grade level they are mainstreamed. They do not stay in the program if they are age appropriate, therefore all the kids in the program are delayed. Yes, they are teaching language before curriculum, because if you have no language, how are you going to learn anything??

The other school is private. They are very different. The kids are all doing very very well.

Or it could be b/c of the public-private divide. Besides, if the private schoolers are doing so well orally, then how come they're in that program?

 

[faire_jour]

Or it could be b/c of the public-private divide. Besides, if the private schoolers are doing so well orally, then how come they're in that program?

The private school is a preschool/kindergarten. The kids will be mainstreamed when they age out. But the program is free, so it is not a money issue.

 

[Hear Again]

faire_jour,

Go back and read the definition in post #255. The definition says "spoken language" -- not "speech." There is a difference. English is a spoken language. Even in its' written form, it is an oral language.

 

[Hear Again]

faire_jour,

What exactly is the "failure model" that you are referring to?

 

[Hear Again]

Cheri,

The research being referred to is post #255, post #257 and any and all of the citations provided by Flip in post #250.

 

[Hear Again]

They are in oral program that also teaches literacy. I have no idea what you think I proved by saying that a group of oral preschoolers can read and write a little.

No, they are in an oral program that is teaching them the written form of English. Being able to sight read 50+ words does not equate to being literate. Literacy requires much more than recognition of the print form of a word.

 

[Hear Again]

Cheri,

Quoted from your first link:

The benefits of such a program are that deaf children receive a language that is highly accessible to them. In the Bi-Bi approach, teachers that are native in the language model ASL for the child. In addition, parents who are hearing may engage a deaf adult who will model ASL in the home environment until the parents’ language skills are adequate. If the child attends a residential school, he also has the opportunity to learn from his peers. Since everyone signs ASL, the feeling of isolation often found among signing children placed in
the mainstream is ameliorated. Since ASL is strongly connected with Deaf Culture, children in Bi-Bi programs have the opportunity to learn about, and participate in, Deaf Culture.

Also:

This document was posted with permission from the author, based on the posting at

Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System.

Although this 1998 article remains informative, it is vital that readers do current research.

Listenup is an orally based organization -- not to mention biased.

Here is a further quote from the first link you provided which states that sign supported speech (as in TC) has numerous problems with teaching proper language:

Sign supported speech (SSS) is the use of a form of manually coded English (MCE) simultaneously with speech in an attempt to increase the input comprehended by deaf students by providing three sources of the message: audition, speechreading, and signs. The purpose of MCE is to "facilitate deaf children's access to English by precisely representing it in a manual modality" (Mounty, 1986) and to "further expose students to the language of reading, writing and of the larger society" (Eagney, 1987). Some forms of MCE are Seeing Essential English (SEE I), Signing Exact English (SEE II), and Signed English (SE). MCE uses signs adopted from ASL but lacks the productivity, inflection, and variability of ASL (Mounty, 1986). MCE follows English syntax (unlike ASL, which has a syntax separate from that of English) and English morphology.

However, MCE leaves a gap between teh signed form and the spoken and written forms. Students show difficulty in transferring English in sign to the written mode. They "may not recognize the printed form of a word that they might know in sign. That is, they may have the vocabulary item in sign, but be unable to use it in writing and reading" (Akamatsu & Armour, 1987). Unlike the signed form, spoken language phonologically connects to the written form.
Therefore, MCE does not provide similar transferability to written English.

 

[Hear Again]

faire_jour,

Please provide the link in which you quoted Gallaudet.

 

[Hear Again]

Cheri,

Shel has always claimed that the 2 languages were kept separate, so you actually supported the point that she makes. Speech is not an academic subject. That is why it is not part of the classroom instruction.

 

[Hear Again]

From post #255:

Contrary to common misconception, the approach does not ignore oracy; rather, it supports instructional delivery that separates languages, thereby preserving the complete linguistic code of any language used in the classroom.