Question

jillio said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's the question. Where are the studies and research that suggests otherwise. To be clear, if a baby was born deaf to hearing parents and they used manualy coded english from the start at home and at school, how would that child compare/contrast to others.
 
jillio said:
Policy is set, with only a few exceptions, by the hearing educators without experience for specialized knowledge in deaf education.
Click to expand...
That still doesn't explain how my statement is wrong. Many people including hearing, deaf, and deaf educators have participated in the development of the various methods. There is nothing wrong in that statement. Maybe you are mis-interpreting it to mean that deaf, hearing and deaf educators were invoived in the development of ALL methods. That's the only thing I can think of that would support your position however it's not what I said.
 
Jasper
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...

Jasper - Families who have choosen CS, use it immediately upon learning it, regardless of the age of the child. Verbal skills of the child have no direct bearing on processing the cues. Babys will "baby cue" just as babys will "baby sign". The benefit for hearing families with deaf children is that they can model/cue a language that they already know. Without an accurate and fluent model of language a child does not learn the "language": English, ASL, French etc. CS shows deaf children the sound and if you ask a deaf cuer, they will tell you they know what is being cued because they "hear the sound/words" in their head, seemingly like hearing people. This always WOWS! me!
 
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...


SEE is easier for the hearing parents, yes because they already have a strong language base to begin with.

My brother showed me why SEE is very confusing for young deaf children who dont have a L1.

SEE sentence "You can go drink from a water fountain" signing like water with the "w" handshape on the chin and fountain with two hands extending up with all 5 fingers moving and then going down (like a waterfall)...to a child that is like telling them they can go drink water from a waterfall or from a decorative fountain while in ASL it is signed as "YOU" then one sign showing a person as if they are drinking from an actual drinking fountain

If u want to follow exact SEE then u will have to sign like the first one but to a child who doesnt have a L1 foundation, that would be confusing but if u changed it to "YOU" "WILL" "DRINK" "FROM" "A" then sign as if u are drinking from an actual drinking fountain, it is still confusing for the child cuz of the sign "DRINK" so it would look like u are telling the child to take a cup to a drinking fountain and using the cup to drink from it.

Same thing if u want to sign butterfly...in SEE, people sign the sign for butter and then sign the sign for fly so to a children developing language, that is telling them that butter itself can actually fly .

Those are some of the examples of why SEE doesnt work for language development and to sign exact English, u must sign every article, every "ed" and "ing" ..then the message becomes too long and tedious..

I have tried that on my students..after 5 mins, they were restless and not paying attention but when I switched to ASL, they were able to keep their attention on me until the story was over and were able to jump in to add or ask questions about the story. With SEE..they lost interest just like that.
 
rockdrummer said:
That still doesn't explain how my statement is wrong. Many people including hearing, deaf, and deaf educators have participated in the development of the various methods. There is nothing wrong in that statement. Maybe you are mis-interpreting it to mean that deaf, hearing and deaf educators were invoived in the development of ALL methods. That's the only thing I can think of that would support your position however it's not what I said.
Click to expand...

Since you were refering to my post regarding the lack of participation of deaf individuals in these methods, by stating that deaf had been involved, I naturally assumed that you meant involvement. And lack of deaf involvement translates to a hearing perspective in the development. Which is what the thread was about. Lack of deaf involvement in the policies that decide their education and their future----their very lives. Hearing provide for deaf what hearing think deaf need from a hearing perspective. What about what the deaf know they need fromthe perspective of having lived as a deaf individual?
 
rockdrummer said:
That's the question. Where are the studies and research that suggests otherwise. To be clear, if a baby was born deaf to hearing parents and they used manualy coded english from the start at home and at school, how would that child compare/contrast to others.
Click to expand...

It creates a linguistically confusing environment.
 
rockdrummer said:
references please
Click to expand...

You know, rd, I have spent the last 21 years reading every book and journal article that I can get my hands on that has anything to do with deafness. I am not writing a paper here, and therefore do not take the time to cite my sources for each and every entry, as my comments are not being published, they are not part of a master's thesis, not are they part of my dissertation. If you would like me to write a research paper, and include a reference page, and cite all resources inthe body, I can do that. But if I am responding to a post, I do not sit here with research materials spread out before me. I rely on the knowledge I have gained through 21 years of both reading, studying, and direct involvement in the deaf community.

However, all of the materials that I have used to educate myself are readily available to any parent of any deaf child. It is my opinion that if they are truly interested in learning everything they can in order to make decisions regarding their child, and to provide the best environment possible for that child, they will take the time to seek out the information. Just because I do not have textbooks in front of me as I make these posts, doesn't mean that the evidence is not out there.

And the question can be reversed. Do you have any citations that can refute what I say?
 
VamPyroX said:
Did you try looking them up on Google or Wikipedia?
Click to expand...

Exactly! If anyone is interested infinding the information, it is readily available. However, the aim is clear. It is not to obtain information, it is simply to be obtuse.
 
rockdrummer said:
That's the question. Where are the studies and research that suggests otherwise. To be clear, if a baby was born deaf to hearing parents and they used manualy coded english from the start at home and at school, how would that child compare/contrast to others.
Click to expand...

Gee. rd, if you are wondering where they are, wouldn't the next logical step be to look for them?
 
jillio said:
You know, rd, I have spent the last 21 years reading every book and journal article that I can get my hands on that has anything to do with deafness. I am not writing a paper here, and therefore do not take the time to cite my sources for each and every entry, as my comments are not being published, they are not part of a master's thesis, not are they part of my dissertation. If you would like me to write a research paper, and include a reference page, and cite all resources inthe body, I can do that. But if I am responding to a post, I do not sit here with research materials spread out before me. I rely on the knowledge I have gained through 21 years of both reading, studying, and direct involvement in the deaf community.

However, all of the materials that I have used to educate myself are readily available to any parent of any deaf child. It is my opinion that if they are truly interested in learning everything they can in order to make decisions regarding their child, and to provide the best environment possible for that child, they will take the time to seek out the information. Just because I do not have textbooks in front of me as I make these posts, doesn't mean that the evidence is not out there.

And the question can be reversed. Do you have any citations that can refute what I say?
Click to expand...
Tha'ts an interesting perspective and I guess it depends on what your purpose is when responding to the posts. Myself and I'm sure others included need to have a reference or resource to fall back on. Not to slight you in any way but how does one know if you are talking facts or if its just your opinion. If I were here to refute things I would have citations. I am here to learn and providing resources is a great service to folks that are here to learn.
 
shel90 said:
SEE is easier for the hearing parents, yes because they already have a strong language base to begin with.

My brother showed me why SEE is very confusing for young deaf children who dont have a L1.

SEE sentence "You can go drink from a water fountain" signing like water with the "w" handshape on the chin and fountain with two hands extending up with all 5 fingers moving and then going down (like a waterfall)...to a child that is like telling them they can go drink water from a waterfall or from a decorative fountain while in ASL it is signed as "YOU" then one sign showing a person as if they are drinking from an actual drinking fountain

If u want to follow exact SEE then u will have to sign like the first one but to a child who doesnt have a L1 foundation, that would be confusing but if u changed it to "YOU" "WILL" "DRINK" "FROM" "A" then sign as if u are drinking from an actual drinking fountain, it is still confusing for the child cuz of the sign "DRINK" so it would look like u are telling the child to take a cup to a drinking fountain and using the cup to drink from it.

Same thing if u want to sign butterfly...in SEE, people sign the sign for butter and then sign the sign for fly so to a children developing language, that is telling them that butter itself can actually fly .

Those are some of the examples of why SEE doesnt work for language development and to sign exact English, u must sign every article, every "ed" and "ing" ..then the message becomes too long and tedious..

I have tried that on my students..after 5 mins, they were restless and not paying attention but when I switched to ASL, they were able to keep their attention on me until the story was over and were able to jump in to add or ask questions about the story. With SEE..they lost interest just like that.
Click to expand...

Excellent post shel! A wonderful explanation of how differences in syntax when it is linear, but being processed in a visual mode, creates a confusing linguistic environment for a child, and actually contributes to delays rather than modifying them.
 
rockdrummer said:
Tha'ts an interesting perspective and I guess it depends on what your purpose is when responding to the posts. Myself and I'm sure others included need to have a reference or resource to fall back on. Not to slight you in any way but how does one know if you are talking facts or if its just your opinion. If I were here to refute things I would have citations. I am here to learn and providing resources is a great service to folks that are here to learn.
Click to expand...

Go on line and look for them. There are volumes and volumes available from any library or bookstore. A thread was started here not long ago regarding books regarding deafness. Many, many books were listed, and all of them can be located through a library. If you will read a few of those, you will find that those books were written using numerous references. If you doubt what is in the books, you can use the references page to actually read the research the volumes are based on.
 
Dumb blond question #2001..........can someone give me a brief explanation of cued speech
Thanks
 
Raykat said:
Dumb blond question #2001..........can someone give me a brief explanation of cued speech
Thanks
Click to expand...

Cued speech is a method of using various handshapes to represent the phonemes of spoken language. Like the other MCEs, it is a method devised to add gloss to spoken language and remove the ambiguity of lipreading. It has been around for 40 years, and has not been proven successful in assisting prelingually deaf children in language acquisition.
 
jillio said:
Cued speech is a method of using various handshapes to represent the phonemes of spoken language. Like the other MCEs, it is a method devised to add gloss to spoken language and remove the ambiguity of lipreading. It has been around for 40 years, and has not been proven successful in assisting prelingually deaf children in language acquisition.
Click to expand...

sounds like something an excited italian would do:ty:

Thank you
 
Back
Top