Question

Ok, I just got done reading the article.. my thoughts on it are this..

It is a very well written article first and foremost.. with only a few parts of the testing he omitted, or I just did not see..

1.) number of individuals in the tests being performed

2.) He used various controls based on what he was researching at the time.. one time he was comparing ASL taught children to foreign students in the contexts of english understanding in written/spoken form. Then he goes on to compare with Oral only taught children near the end regarding speech skill.

3.) I would have liked to have seen background on these students on if they use ASL as their primary language or use English as the primary language - this is a key point which was not made.. he was only referring to language development from a linguistic point of view.. which is fine..

There were a few other small issues that I may have had IF I had to write a paper on this report..but all in all it was very good..

My take on what the paper is telling us: Students who are taught ASL as their first and primary language at a given point provided similar testing results in these catagories to these students

* Speech - ASL taught students (who had deaf parents) were on par with with Oral only taught students

My issue with this is result is.. only 10% of deaf children are born to deaf parents - what are the results of the other 90%?

* English Language Mastery - Deaf students were on par with other foreign language students who took the TOEFL

I can go on and on with the various results he posts.. I do not disagree with any of them.. I agree fully with them..

This paper is not what we are discussing though.. He is stating that ASL serves to help the child when it comes to learning english, though he mentions that most are on par with various other groups which would be fitting to compare them to.

What I would like to see would be results of children who learned SEE (or ESE) as their first language even before they were able to use speech (as shown with baby signing in hearing and deaf children) This gives not only hearing and deaf children an advantage by using their communication skills at a much earlier age then would be seen with students in an oral only approach (hearing and deaf)

Once the child has learned ESE (or SEE) and possess the ability to vocalize, would be the time to teach him/her the vocalization of those signs he/she has already been using for the past 6-12 months if not longer.

I will expand on what I would like to see.. alot of this I have posted previously in other threads/posts and even on this message.. This would be a method taught to both hearing and deaf children.

1.)SEE (or ESE) for children who are not yet cognitive through the time they are first able to vocalize through mimicry.

2.) use signing as a basis for teaching the verbalization of the signs thereby compounding upon the knowledge of the english language which is already in use

3.) Using the various techniques both ESE (or SEE) spoken english or maybe even cued speech to teach the child reading/writing skills.

This would provide a great improvement in both deaf students and hearing students as it has already been pointed out that deaf students who were born to deaf parents are shown to perform better then deaf students who were born to hearing parents

This result indicates that by starting a child earlier in language development greatly increases their abilities later in life. I would not see why this would not translate to hearing parents with hearing children as well.

Another added benefit would be if this were widely adopted,preschool and grade school teachers and maybe even some babysitters would know and be fairly fluent in signing due to the fact that the parents were teaching this method.. and would be asking to continue this method in the child's teachings. Again this can be used with hearing and deaf students..

You can probably see if this were adopted mainstreaming would become the norm.. because everyone would have a good understanding of both signing and spoken english by the time they reach a perticular age in grade school..

This would make signing an everyday thing for both hearing and deaf individuals at least in an early age but preferably throughout life as those children will grow up to have children thereby continuing the cycle of this teaching (in hearing and deaf students)

Again.. I could go on and on about the advantages of a system like this.. but I would like to know what other people think about a system like this?
 
thanks for taking the time to read and respond to that Jasper. I would tend to agree with you and would also like to see the results of teaching english via SEE or via some other coded form as a first language. The deaf children that are born to deaf parents do have an advantage. As the hearing parent of a deaf child it would be eaiser for me to code a language that I allready know as opposed to learning a completly new language. That is not to take the easy way out but there is a limited window of opportunity that one shouldn't waste away. Assuming a parent is fluent in SEE (as an example) I would wonder how their deaf child would compare if SEE was the method of communication and education. Where are those studies?
 
Thanks for the links rockdrummer!

rockdrummer
eaiser for me to code a language that I allready know as opposed to learning a completly new language
Click to expand...

This is where Cued Speech is handy.

The SEEII center in located in California. Here is their homepage: S.E.E. Center Homepage
 
SEE is much easier to learn especially for individuals know already know English due to the same syntax and the lack of a need to learn the written form of the language as well. This is one reason I really like this method.. especially when trying to teach people with previous experience of english how to sign. (I am not a teacher.. I just teach friends that dont already know ASL basic signs..)

I see this alot with hearing students who take ASL or friends that I start to teach signs.. they seem to prefer or subconsciously use SEE when signing.. especially in a casual manner (not being graded).. this is more then likely due to there already existing skills and experience with English (spoken and written).

Cued speech is another fairly good option as well but you can not use cued speech with infants and very young children who have not yet achieved verbal skills. I do not see why it could not be used as a support system while a child is still learning verbal english.. especially if there was a way to teach them the phenomes associated with the cue at an early age without difficulty.
 
Jasper said:
Ok, I just got done reading the article.. my thoughts on it are this..

It is a very well written article first and foremost.. with only a few parts of the testing he omitted, or I just did not see..

1.) number of individuals in the tests being performed

2.) He used various controls based on what he was researching at the time.. one time he was comparing ASL taught children to foreign students in the contexts of english understanding in written/spoken form. Then he goes on to compare with Oral only taught children near the end regarding speech skill.

3.) I would have liked to have seen background on these students on if they use ASL as their primary language or use English as the primary language - this is a key point which was not made.. he was only referring to language development from a linguistic point of view.. which is fine..

There were a few other small issues that I may have had IF I had to write a paper on this report..but all in all it was very good..

My take on what the paper is telling us: Students who are taught ASL as their first and primary language at a given point provided similar testing results in these catagories to these students

* Speech - ASL taught students (who had deaf parents) were on par with with Oral only taught students

My issue with this is result is.. only 10% of deaf children are born to deaf parents - what are the results of the other 90%?

* English Language Mastery - Deaf students were on par with other foreign language students who took the TOEFL

I can go on and on with the various results he posts.. I do not disagree with any of them.. I agree fully with them..

This paper is not what we are discussing though.. He is stating that ASL serves to help the child when it comes to learning english, though he mentions that most are on par with various other groups which would be fitting to compare them to.

What I would like to see would be results of children who learned SEE (or ESE) as their first language even before they were able to use speech (as shown with baby signing in hearing and deaf children) This gives not only hearing and deaf children an advantage by using their communication skills at a much earlier age then would be seen with students in an oral only approach (hearing and deaf)

Once the child has learned ESE (or SEE) and possess the ability to vocalize, would be the time to teach him/her the vocalization of those signs he/she has already been using for the past 6-12 months if not longer.

I will expand on what I would like to see.. alot of this I have posted previously in other threads/posts and even on this message.. This would be a method taught to both hearing and deaf children.

1.)SEE (or ESE) for children who are not yet cognitive through the time they are first able to vocalize through mimicry.

2.) use signing as a basis for teaching the verbalization of the signs thereby compounding upon the knowledge of the english language which is already in use

3.) Using the various techniques both ESE (or SEE) spoken english or maybe even cued speech to teach the child reading/writing skills.

This would provide a great improvement in both deaf students and hearing students as it has already been pointed out that deaf students who were born to deaf parents are shown to perform better then deaf students who were born to hearing parents

This result indicates that by starting a child earlier in language development greatly increases their abilities later in life. I would not see why this would not translate to hearing parents with hearing children as well.

Another added benefit would be if this were widely adopted,preschool and grade school teachers and maybe even some babysitters would know and be fairly fluent in signing due to the fact that the parents were teaching this method.. and would be asking to continue this method in the child's teachings. Again this can be used with hearing and deaf students..

You can probably see if this were adopted mainstreaming would become the norm.. because everyone would have a good understanding of both signing and spoken english by the time they reach a perticular age in grade school..

This would make signing an everyday thing for both hearing and deaf individuals at least in an early age but preferably throughout life as those children will grow up to have children thereby continuing the cycle of this teaching (in hearing and deaf students)

Again.. I could go on and on about the advantages of a system like this.. but I would like to know what other people think about a system like this?
Click to expand...

Actually, I only quoted the Marshark paper. It was a literature review conducted with two of his colleagues regarding the most recent research on CI implanted children and educational achievement. He wasn't therefore, responsible for sample size or controls. He simply complied nemerous results of studies, and analyzed them to reach a cohesive conlcusion based on studies that both supported oral only and specch with sign educational environments. As he compared the two methods using all the available research, I chose this particular article becuase, in comparison, he has achieved an objectivity that is not equaled when looking at a study of only one method.

And this is exactly what shel and I, and others of like mind, would like to see adpoted as policy. We do not want to see children denied the opportunity to achieve language acquisition by any means available.
 
rockdrummer said:
thanks for taking the time to read and respond to that Jasper. I would tend to agree with you and would also like to see the results of teaching english via SEE or via some other coded form as a first language. The deaf children that are born to deaf parents do have an advantage. As the hearing parent of a deaf child it would be eaiser for me to code a language that I allready know as opposed to learning a completly new language. That is not to take the easy way out but there is a limited window of opportunity that one shouldn't waste away. Assuming a parent is fluent in SEE (as an example) I would wonder how their deaf child would compare if SEE was the method of communication and education. Where are those studies?
Click to expand...

There have been studies showing that children who are exposed to SEE and PSE receptively will adopt a syntax closer to that of ASL in expressive use of language. And I know of at least a couple longitudinal case studies that show that children surpass their models when they are exposed to less than fluent signing models. I believe I refered to those in another post when I encouraged you to continue to sign, no matter that your ASL skills were less than fluent.
 
rockdrummer said:
Please humor me. I am trying to follow this.
I said

Then you said


Am I missing something. I don't see an error in what I said. All I said was that many people have been involved in the evolution of the various approaches. Some deaf, some deaf educators and some hearing. What is wrong in that statement?
Click to expand...

Policy is set, with only a few exceptions, by the hearing educators without experience for specialized knowledge in deaf education.
 
rockdrummer said:
Has anybody suggested that learning ASL would inhibet english skills. While ASL doesn't lend itself to aquiring reading and writing skills I don't know that it would inhibit those skills. Are there any studies or research that suggests a benefit to learning ASL first?
Click to expand...

Yes, many have suggested that learning ASL, or any form of sign, will inhibit the learning or oral language. And since oral English is the first mode of English that a child learns, the suggestion is implied.

For a deaf child, there have been numerous studies suggesting that visual liguistic input is that wich allows the child to most readliy internalize language as a system, and that once thaey have been able to accomplish that in a incidental manner, they are better skilled at applying that which has been internalized to another language.
 
Jasper said:
but hearing babies do not rely on sign once they are able to speak.

An issue I have had with learning ASL only has been the lack of english skills both in writing, reading, and speaking. people who were raised in a more oral environment tend to have better reading and writing skills which are essential in life. While Oral communication is an invaluable skill.. it is second to reading and writing skills. Once you have the ability to read.. you can learn anything!

ASL has no real shared syntax with English.. It is not an ideal base for a leap to english although I would not go so far as to assume that it hiders either. This is where ESE and CS can really shine.. It makes a great bridge between signed language and spoken/written english.

I am under to ideal that a deaf child is a child none the less.. I have never let my hearing loss define me.. I would never let it define my child either..
Click to expand...

Hearing loss defining the indiviudal is a sociolgical creation, created by the majority society. Damned for Difference, Everone Here Spoke Sign, and Dancing Without Music are 3 of the books that came to mind first that contain excellenct explanations of the process. Perhaps you would not teach your child to define himself or herself by their deafness, but unfortunately, that child will have contact with many, many individuals in their lifetime that will define them by such, and will place them in a postion of having to define themselves based on such. And is is an unfortunate fact that many of those who teach a deaf child to define himself negatively based on his hearing loss are mainstream educators that are supposed to be responsible for fostering the growth of these kids.
 
Jasper said:
SEE is much easier to learn especially for individuals know already know English due to the same syntax and the lack of a need to learn the written form of the language as well. This is one reason I really like this method.. especially when trying to teach people with previous experience of english how to sign. (I am not a teacher.. I just teach friends that dont already know ASL basic signs..)

I see this alot with hearing students who take ASL or friends that I start to teach signs.. they seem to prefer or subconsciously use SEE when signing.. especially in a casual manner (not being graded).. this is more then likely due to there already existing skills and experience with English (spoken and written).

Cued speech is another fairly good option as well but you can not use cued speech with infants and very young children who have not yet achieved verbal skills. I do not see why it could not be used as a support system while a child is still learning verbal english.. especially if there was a way to teach them the phenomes associated with the cue at an early age without difficulty.
Click to expand...

Fine motor skills and the ability to make finer distinctions in any langauge (happens with hearing kids, too) are one of the drawbacks. Developmentally, children simply aren't able to accomplish these tasks at a young age.
 
Jasper said:
I am not really sure how you would like me to answer this question.. but I will try..

People learn a language through study and use.. another way people learn is though mimicry.. a child learns their first words by their parents talking.. the child tries to mimic his/her parents in an attempt to communicate. This works not only with oral skills.. but also writing AND reading skills as well. You can also see this will to communicate at a very early age when teaching the child signs..as they are able to link a specific sign to its meaning/function that the parents have enforced through repetitive action.

But.. I think that it really comes down to the determination of the child.. does the child want to read at better than a 4th grade education when they become an adult? Do they want to be able to properly write their feelings and ideas in a fashion equivalent to their age group? These are questions best left up to the child..

But this determination is instilled in the children by their parents AND teachers!
Click to expand...

Exactly. And this is the way that a child internalizes language as a system, and is able to intuit rules for its use. This interanlization of one langauge allows for greater skill at learning a second language, because the concept of language is already in place.
 
melabrock said:
The problem I have with ESE is it's a manual substitute for English, which of course is the point, but ASL is a full-fledged language on its own, giving a child who learns ASL an understanding of rules and structure before moving onto English, instead of just a manual substitute for another language.
Click to expand...

BINGO!
 
rockdrummer said:
what's the benefit to using ASL to learn rules and structure as opposed to english. After all insn't english literacy the end goal in an educational setting?
Click to expand...

Internalization of language is the benefit to deaf children.
 
Jasper said:
ESE - exact signed english
SEE - sign exact english

they are the same.. just different ways of saying it..



Well.. lets deconstruct and look backwards from what is the main goal

Main goal being - Use and mastery of English (spoken, writing, reading)

How do you get from the "finish line" to the "starting line" Well there are many ways.. but in my opinion the most direct approach is going from English, to signed english, to mimicry in the form of the child's urges to communicate in ANY language. Which is the start of a child's language development

Using ASL as an alternative to ESE (or SEE) is like taking a scenic detour across the communicative landscape.. Its a nice town, yes.. but not along the main highway, and the roads back to the main highway towards English are not marked properly..
Click to expand...


Main goal is early linguistic compethence in the deaf child that will allow for mastery of English, thus leading to increased literacy skills.
 
rockdrummer said:
thanks for taking the time to read and respond to that Jasper. I would tend to agree with you and would also like to see the results of teaching english via SEE or via some other coded form as a first language. The deaf children that are born to deaf parents do have an advantage. As the hearing parent of a deaf child it would be eaiser for me to code a language that I allready know as opposed to learning a completly new language. That is not to take the easy way out but there is a limited window of opportunity that one shouldn't waste away. Assuming a parent is fluent in SEE (as an example) I would wonder how their deaf child would compare if SEE was the method of communication and education. Where are those studies?
Click to expand...

Ahhh....yes, it would be easier for you, as the hearing parent, to code a lanuage you already know. But would it be easier for the deaf child to acquire language in that way?
 
once again, it's hard to tell the parents what's is right or wrong... we just have to keep educating them till we are beet red in our faces.. lol

your quote: If the child gets exposed to both and doing good and wants to be mainstreamed in an oral only program or be in a signing program, they have that choice. I believe in empowering the children especially deaf children.

I agree!!! give them many options that they are comfortable with... nothing wrong with trying out something.. smile...

Hmmm as a Deaf person myself, over the years I have always believed every Deaf child should have the chance to learn the sign language right from the very first moment he/she is discovered to be deaf.

Then how? I agree we have to educate the society till we're blue in the face . . . to introduce the idea of . . . . teaching doctors to bring a Deaf person in along with an interpreter to each parent of newly discovered deaf bsby/child. Thus if done professionally the parents could be convinced that their deaf baby/child will be ok . . . provided they learn the sign language accepting their child has its rights to a clear communication in their family. Same time seeing a Deaf professional working so capably giving a positive image thus convincing them of positive future for their deaf bsby/child?

This is a kind introduction to the newly discovedred parents of their "Deaf" baby/child thus creating clear communication between parents and baby/child which is very vital for creating a wide vocabilary(sp?) tool for future or for rest of that individual's life.

I believe each child could be assessed to find the best ways of its positive education abilities thru many activities in class. Also every child be asked what their wants are . . . choices . . . in every way possible using sign language first followed with any other fads if needed.

If i offend - sorry - I am a new member here - choosing to jump in the deep end LOL

Jillio thanks for introducing this thread - smile.
 
:gpost::gpost:
treenz said:
once again, it's hard to tell the parents what's is right or wrong... we just have to keep educating them till we are beet red in our faces.. lol

your quote: If the child gets exposed to both and doing good and wants to be mainstreamed in an oral only program or be in a signing program, they have that choice. I believe in empowering the children especially deaf children.

I agree!!! give them many options that they are comfortable with... nothing wrong with trying out something.. smile...

Hmmm as a Deaf person myself, over the years I have always believed every Deaf child should have the chance to learn the sign language right from the very first moment he/she is discovered to be deaf.

Then how? I agree we have to educate the society till we're blue in the face . . . to introduce the idea of . . . . teaching doctors to bring a Deaf person in along with an interpreter to each parent of newly discovered deaf bsby/child. Thus if done professionally the parents could be convinced that their deaf baby/child will be ok . . . provided they learn the sign language accepting their child has its rights to a clear communication in their family. Same time seeing a Deaf professional working so capably giving a positive image thus convincing them of positive future for their deaf bsby/child?

This is a kind introduction to the newly discovedred parents of their "Deaf" baby/child thus creating clear communication between parents and baby/child which is very vital for creating a wide vocabilary(sp?) tool for future or for rest of that individual's life.

I believe each child could be assessed to find the best ways of its positive education abilities thru many activities in class. Also every child be asked what their wants are . . . choices . . . in every way possible using sign language first followed with any other fads if needed.

If i offend - sorry - I am a new member here - choosing to jump in the deep end LOL

Jillio thanks for introducing this thread - smile.
Click to expand...

You are very welcome! Welcome to AD.
 
does anyone else realize how far from the original topic we have actually gotten?
 
Back
Top