SEE (Signing Exact English) is the best sign language for a child to start with..

[Reba]

I did a research paper on deaf education vs. hearing education for a comp class a couple of semesters ago and in when I found was that no matter if it was ASL or SEE if deaf children had a full access to language by the time they begin kindergarten then they usually were on par with their hearing peers in terms of intellectual development. What I concluded was that deaf children do best by having a signed language then when they enter school that is where they begin to learn English. Deaf five year olds have the same signed vocabulary range as hearing 5 year olds with the same amount of spoken vocabulary range. (meaning they know the same amount of words whether it is signed or spoken.) I believe I had intended to post that paper here in this forum but I never did. I need to dig it up and post it here.

I think we can all agree that deaf children need a full access to a language when they enter school so that further learning can take place. Language is the foundation for all further learning. If a child has no language which they can use or find useful they cannot be expected to learn. Just my two cents on the subject.

Interesting.

It may not be simply the difference between ASL and SEE but the amount of use and timing of access to language.

Perhaps SEE gets the edge over ASL for early pre-school family intervention because it's easier for the parents to learn and use. Thus, they are more likely to get involved with signing with their young children at home.

Even if ASL as a language is better than SEE the system, if the parents balk at using it, then it does no good. If the parents are more comfortable with SEE, or the public services promote it more aggressively to them, then they may embrace it more enthusiastically.

Even if ASL is best choice as a lifelong language, if it doesn't get the full endorsement and support from the early childhood intervention agencies and schools, and full acceptance and use by the families, then it won't be the most benefit for the children.

This is just speculation and opinion on my part.

 

[shel90]

I did a research paper on deaf education vs. hearing education for a comp class a couple of semesters ago and in when I found was that no matter if it was ASL or SEE if deaf children had a full access to language by the time they begin kindergarten then they usually were on par with their hearing peers in terms of intellectual development. What I concluded was that deaf children do best by having a signed language then when they enter school that is where they begin to learn English. Deaf five year olds have the same signed vocabulary range as hearing 5 year olds with the same amount of spoken vocabulary range. (meaning they know the same amount of words whether it is signed or spoken.) I believe I had intended to post that paper here in this forum but I never did. I need to dig it up and post it here.

I think we can all agree that deaf children need a full access to a language when they enter school so that further learning can take place. Language is the foundation for all further learning. If a child has no language which they can use or find useful they cannot be expected to learn. Just my two cents on the subject.

I agree that SEE is better for the parents to learn than nothing. However, in the educational setting where learning takes place, SEE can become very rebundant especially if we want our deaf students to achieve higher thinking skills. One has to be careful when it comes to using the appropriate language.

Hearing children wouldnt do well if they were exposed to a spoken language that follows the ASL syntax, wouldnt they?

 

[Reba]

One thing I have observed in "mainstream" schools is that Deaf students are being taught English reading and writing the same way the hearing students are taught. Mainstream is a nice philosophy but it falls short as a reality.

Young Deaf students need reading and writing classes that are tailored specifically for them. They can merge in with "mainstream" English classes later, at the high school level, for grammar refinement and appreciation of literature. But they really need to get the fundamentals of English firmly established at the elementary level first. Otherwise, they're always playing catch up, or being socially promoted.

IMO

 

[Beowulf]

I am not sure, but I think at oral schools where signing is frowned upon, children tend to use SEE. Is that correct? It has been ages since my childhood but I think so.

 

[shel90]

One thing I have observed in "mainstream" schools is that Deaf students are being taught English reading and writing the same way the hearing students are taught. Mainstream is a nice philosophy but it falls short as a reality.

Young Deaf students need reading and writing classes that are tailored specifically for them. They can merge in with "mainstream" English classes later, at the high school level, for grammar refinement and appreciation of literature. But they really need to get the fundamentals of English firmly established at the elementary level first. Otherwise, they're always playing catch up, or being socially promoted.

IMO

I agree with you. That's why Iam a firm believer in giving deaf children both languages so when they get older and want to be mainstreamed or whatever, at least they have a strong foundation of skills instead of the opposite which I see constantly.

 

[Reba]

I agree that SEE is better for the parents to learn than nothing. However, in the educational setting where learning takes place, SEE can become very rebundant especially if we want our deaf students to achieve higher thinking skills. One has to be careful when it comes to using the appropriate language.

Hearing children wouldnt do well if they were exposed to a spoken language that follows the ASL syntax, wouldnt they?

I don't necessarily endorse parents using SEE over ASL. I'm just speculating what might have been the situation for some families. With more support for ASL at an earlier age, I think that can be turned around.

Hearing children who are exposed to non-standard English (Spanglish, Ebonics, backwoods, Gullah, pidgin) during their formative years, can overcome it with the proper education, motivation, and support. The same could be for deaf children who start out with SEE/PSE.

The problem is, getting the right teachers, tutors, curricula, and family support.

I'm sure you're well aware of that frustrating struggle.

 

[shel90]

I don't necessarily endorse parents using SEE over ASL. I'm just speculating what might have been the situation for some families. With more support for ASL at an earlier age, I think that can be turned around.

Hearing children who are exposed to non-standard English (Spanglish, Ebonics, backwoods, Gullah, pidgin) during their formative years, can overcome it with the proper education, motivation, and support. The same could be for deaf children who start out with SEE/PSE.

The problem is, getting the right teachers, tutors, curricula, and family support.

I'm sure you're well aware of that frustrating struggle.

I was referring of changing English to follow ASL syntax, know what I mean?

I dont know how bad Ebonics, backwoods, and all those other sublanguages you brought up since I cant hear them. Hehehehe. All I know is that if schools taught using spoken language that has been modified to follow ASL syntax, it would be distastrous. I am sure you already know that. Many people out there think it is ok to change a signed language to follow the syntax of their spoken language not realizing the negative consequences of it.

Yea, I agree with you about the problems getting the right staff and resources to adequately educate deaf children.

However, for the home, if it is too hard for the parents to learn ASL, then SEE is better than nothing.

 

[shel90]

I am not sure, but I think at oral schools where signing is frowned upon, children tend to use SEE. Is that correct? It has been ages since my childhood but I think so.

I think they tend to Sim-Com since oral schools are very big on using everyone's voices.

 

[Reba]

I was referring of changing English to follow ASL syntax, know what I mean?

I dont know how bad Ebonics, backwoods, and all those other sublanguages you brought up since I cant hear them. Hehehehe. All I know is that if schools taught using spoken language that has been modified to follow ASL syntax, it would be distastrous. I am sure you already know that. Many people out there think it is ok to change a signed language to follow the syntax of their spoken language not realizing the negative consequences of it....

Yes, I know what you mean about ASL syntax vs. English syntax.

Even the transcription or captioning of those non-standard English versions would be hard to follow.

No, it's not "right" to change ASL syntax in order to fit English. IMO, the two languages need to be kept separate.

My analogy:

A hearing child who is fluent and literate in Spanish can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and Spanish "Spanglish" and no literacy is stuck.

A deaf child who is fluent and literate in ASL can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and signs "PSE" and no literacy is stuck.

 

[Reba]

I think they tend to Sim-Com since oral schools are very big on using everyone's voices.

Sometimes it's not even Sim-Com but sign-supported speech. That means, a few token signs are tossed into the basically oral conversation.

 

[Beowulf]

Sometimes it's not even Sim-Com but sign-supported speech. That means, a few token signs are tossed into the basically oral conversation.

That's what I am thinking. I remember being in "special" classes while mainstreamed in an elementary school. I certainly didn't receive any formal lessons in signing and I don't think the other deaf kids did, either. I do remember quickly signing with them while the teacher wasn't looking, though.

 

[Reba]

That's what I am thinking. I remember being in "special" classes while mainstreamed in an elementary school. I certainly didn't receive any formal lessons in signing and I don't think the other deaf kids did, either. I do remember quickly signing with them while the teacher wasn't looking, though.

I believe it.

 

[deafbajagal]

Paul (I cannot remember his first name but he's a big researcher dude for deaf education) said something in one of his books (which are informative but it's a pain to read his stuff because he writes so technical) that stuck with me.

Language cannot be taught. It only can be acquired.

 

[naisho]

Hey shel, what about when it comes to grammar? You are the teacher, so you probably have a better saying in this.

I wonder about the situations VampyroX explained, when it comes to ASL grammar reciprocated into written english, it becomes a touchy subject. Why is it that there are situations where some ASL users are missing a part of the gap into grammar usage, whereas it seems SEE eliminates this?

I haven't seen this large scale outside of AD.. but almost everyone here who learned PSE/SEE, I think their grammar is right on or above the accepted level.

Maybe, I'm taking a guess that it's not actually having to do with learning a single language, (and of course, early on in their life) but actually being flexible and learning more languages to become more proficient - almost all the SEE people who replied in here seem to be well versed on ASL, or even oral skills, hence the multiple languages.

 

[jillio]

i don't necessarily endorse parents using see over asl. I'm just speculating what might have been the situation for some families. With more support for asl at an earlier age, i think that can be turned around.

Hearing children who are exposed to non-standard english (spanglish, ebonics, backwoods, gullah, pidgin) during their formative years, can overcome it with the proper education, motivation, and support. The same could be for deaf children who start out with see/pse.

The problem is, getting the right teachers, tutors, curricula, and family support.

I'm sure you're well aware of that frustrating struggle.

+1.

 

[jillio]

One thing I have observed in "mainstream" schools is that Deaf students are being taught English reading and writing the same way the hearing students are taught. Mainstream is a nice philosophy but it falls short as a reality.

Young Deaf students need reading and writing classes that are tailored specifically for them. They can merge in with "mainstream" English classes later, at the high school level, for grammar refinement and appreciation of literature. But they really need to get the fundamentals of English firmly established at the elementary level first. Otherwise, they're always playing catch up, or being socially promoted.

IMO

OMG, yes!!! There are those that get very insulted when you suggest that the deaf have cognitive differences that need to be addressed when deciding on methodology and these differences hold true even if the child is functionally HOH with a devise or an HA.

And so true about the fundamentals. Unfortunately, in the mainstream, they often don't provide services until about the fourth grade, assuming that the child will only need accommodation as the subject matter gets more difficult. By then, it is too late. The damage has been done.

 

[jillio]

Hey shel, what about when it comes to grammar? You are the teacher, so you probably have a better saying in this.

I wonder about the situations VampyroX explained, when it comes to ASL grammar reciprocated into written english, it becomes a touchy subject. Why is it that there are situations where some ASL users are missing a part of the gap into grammar usage, whereas it seems SEE eliminates this?

I haven't seen this large scale outside of AD.. but almost everyone here who learned PSE/SEE, I think their grammar is right on or above the accepted level.

Maybe, I'm taking a guess that it's not actually having to do with learning a single language, (and of course, early on in their life) but actually being flexible and learning more languages to become more proficient - almost all the SEE people who replied in here seem to be well versed on ASL, or even oral skills, hence the multiple languages.

SEE does not eliminate it. Those gaps are the results of processing in the brain, not language mode. And I wish someone would show me a school anywhere where the teachers are actually using SEE. Studies show that even when they say they use SEE, they are actually using PSE because the cumbersome nature of SEE is impossible to use in a communicative setting like the classroom.

 

[jillio]

I think they tend to Sim-Com since oral schools are very big on using everyone's voices.

Yep. And no one can speak and sign SEE at the same time. It takes twice as long to sign a sentence in SEE as it does to speak it or sign it in ASL. Mostly, they sign key conceptual words, and that is it.

 

[shel90]

Yes, I know what you mean about ASL syntax vs. English syntax.

Even the transcription or captioning of those non-standard English versions would be hard to follow.

No, it's not "right" to change ASL syntax in order to fit English. IMO, the two languages need to be kept separate.

My analogy:

A hearing child who is fluent and literate in Spanish can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and Spanish "Spanglish" and no literacy is stuck.

A deaf child who is fluent and literate in ASL can learn to be fluent and literate in English. He will be able to communicate in both worlds. But a child who learns neither language but gets by with blended English and signs "PSE" and no literacy is stuck.

I totally agree with you analogy. Of course, there are some exceptions...kids who managed to overcome these deficits in languages to achieve literacy but it is very rare and not worth the risk.

 

[jillio]

Paul (I cannot remember his first name but he's a big researcher dude for deaf education) said something in one of his books (which are informative but it's a pain to read his stuff because he writes so technical) that stuck with me.

Language cannot be taught. It only can be acquired.

I agree 110%. Only mechanics of language can be taught, and that can only be done effectively once the language is acquired.