Start with spoken language or ASL?

[shel90]

Only two people that you knew of so you suddenly assume it's the norm with others? Come on!

Have you attended to a deaf or mainstream school or university?

Have you noticed of others there in case you attended both?

I have seen many differences amongst deaf, mainstream, and other kind of students by attending both deaf school, NTID, and Gallaudet university... I attended a mainstream school for three years as a pre-teen in Texas.

Not only that but read resources and heard of other teachers' experiences that do tell a lot. Few of them deaf teachers are my close friends. We talked some length of time about the stuff as well.

So it told others and me plenty that it proved ASL (BiBi) works the best as the early intervention tool so far.

As you should have noticed that most AD posters agree the same thing except for the few. Yet it's not enough to count to be fair enough. If those few continue to disagree, you're free to do so but it won't change my or other ASL supporters' opinions, however.

And it shows that having more exposure to a variety of people, programs, and etc helps us to see the bigger picture.

And no, that is not to offend anyone but it is true in not just in Deaf ed but in so many other areas.

 

[shel90]

The same can be applied for ASL. I'm concerned that that focus on ASL will have repercussions too. We all pretty much agree that language acquisition and development is important. No one is denying that. I'm just trying to get a defined opinion of which language should be primary and why. Generally, I am all for case by case basis (as someone said "One size does not fit all"). However, I wanted to know what people would think in the specific case I mentioned (potential good lipreading skills, can develop oral skills without ASL, hearing parents, so on). It seemed to me that you're for ASL first, but you said "No thats not what Im saying" and it didn't seem that you're for oral speech first. So what's left.....?

Even mastering oral skills, by being put in an environment 24/7 that where language is better processed auditorally, the deaf child still misses out so much in different critical areas of developmental skills while the hearing child doesnt. If the hearing child does, that usually is due to other cognitive processing disabilities. The deaf child has none...

 

[jillio]

The same can be applied for ASL. I'm concerned that that focus on ASL will have repercussions too. We all pretty much agree that language acquisition and development is important. No one is denying that. I'm just trying to get a defined opinion of which language should be primary and why. Generally, I am all for case by case basis (as someone said "One size does not fit all"). However, I wanted to know what people would think in the specific case I mentioned (potential good lipreading skills, can develop oral skills without ASL, hearing parents, so on). It seemed to me that you're for ASL first, but you said "No thats not what Im saying" and it didn't seem that you're for oral speech first. So what's left.....?

You are having trouble comprehending my posts, as you keep atrributing statements to me that I never made.

Let me ask you this. In the scenario you described, how does one know what the potential for developing oral skills or the potential for good lipreading skills is without allowing time to pass to see if, and this is a big "if" those skills develop. While you are spending all that time on this "wait and see" approach, what are you doing to expose that child to a language that is 100% accessable to insure that they do not experience delays in acquisiton?

 

[Daredevel7]

Only two people that you knew of so you suddenly assume it's the norm with others? Come on!

I don't know if people are reading too fast, but I even stated "even though its not the norm". I'm saying that it CAN happen. And even though 2 people may not be much to you, but I know personally maybe a total of 5 profoundly deaf people. So thats almost half for me. Anyway, thats not the point. Im saying, however FEW, the deaf children who can learn to speak without ASL are out there. Im asking do you think that teaching THOSE specific deaf children ASL anyway will have any repercussions? Im asking because if not, then hey that means we can start off every deaf child with ASL, without worrying about the repercussions. Right?

To answer your question:
I went to a mainstream school since pre-K.

 

[Daredevel7]

You are having trouble comprehending my posts, as you keep atrributing statements to me that I never made.

Let me ask you this. In the scenario you described, how does one know what the potential for developing oral skills or the potential for good lipreading skills is without allowing time to pass to see if, and this is a big "if" those skills develop. While you are spending all that time on this "wait and see" approach, what are you doing to expose that child to a language that is 100% accessable to insure that they do not experience delays in acquisiton?

I don't understand this "wait and see" approach. I mean I get the image of parents standing idly by going "Hey Vicky (thats me), can you understand me? Hey can you understand me now? Hey hey how about now? ...... Vicky vicky, can you understand me?" I learned new words everyday when they started speech therapy on me. Is that "wait and see" to you? I even have it on tape if you'd like to come over and watch it with me

 

[shel90]

I don't understand this "wait and see" approach. I mean I get the image of parents standing idly by going "Hey Vicky (thats me), can you understand me? Hey can you understand me now? Hey hey how about now? ...... Vicky vicky, can you understand me?" I learned new words everyday when they started speech therapy on me. Is that "wait and see" to you? I even have it on tape if you'd like to come over and watch it with me

I dont think anyone really understands what the "wait and see" approach until they have personal experience in the field. It is hard to explain it on a forum without face to face.

 

[web730]

I don't know if people are reading too fast, but I even stated "even though its not the norm". I'm saying that it CAN happen. And even though 2 people may not be much to you, but I know personally maybe a total of 5 profoundly deaf people. So thats almost half for me. Anyway, thats not the point. Im saying, however FEW, the deaf children who can learn to speak without ASL are out there. Im asking do you think that teaching THOSE specific deaf children ASL anyway will have any repercussions? Im asking because if not, then hey that means we can start off every deaf child with ASL, without worrying about the repercussions. Right?

To answer your question:
I went to a mainstream school since pre-K.

Yes, true enough that there are several deaf people could do well despite lack of learning ASL yet do real well. I have seen them before... yet I notice most of those types who did real well in school due to heavy reading that may have distributed to their makeup.

We debate mainly on the majority of deaf children/adults not such deaf individuals... since it's easier to categorize and compare with the resources and facts, ofc.

 

[jillio]

I don't know if people are reading too fast, but I even stated "even though its not the norm". I'm saying that it CAN happen. And even though 2 people may not be much to you, but I know personally maybe a total of 5 profoundly deaf people. So thats almost half for me. Anyway, thats not the point. Im saying, however FEW, the deaf children who can learn to speak without ASL are out there. Im asking do you think that teaching THOSE specific deaf children ASL anyway will have any repercussions? Im asking because if not, then hey that means we can start off every deaf child with ASL, without worrying about the repercussions. Right?

To answer your question:
I went to a mainstream school since pre-K.

Why would teaching ASL in that context have negative repercussions? Bilingualism is an advantage in any situation. It will have repercussions, to be sure, but they will be postive, not negative.

 

[Daredevel7]

I dont think anyone really understands what the "wait and see" approach until they have personal experience in the field. It is hard to explain it on a forum without face to face.

Well, whatever is "the wait and see" approach, I'm sure I'm against it. It doesn't sound good. I think Ive explained sufficiently how speech therapy went with me in my initial language acquisition. I'm curious to see how you and jillio feel about it. Would I have been better off if my mom taught me ASL first? or it wouldn't have mattered either way?

 

[jillio]

I don't understand this "wait and see" approach. I mean I get the image of parents standing idly by going "Hey Vicky (thats me), can you understand me? Hey can you understand me now? Hey hey how about now? ...... Vicky vicky, can you understand me?" I learned new words everyday when they started speech therapy on me. Is that "wait and see" to you? I even have it on tape if you'd like to come over and watch it with me

Are you purposely being obtuse?

And you haven't answered the question regarding how you would insure that this child had 100% access to linguistic input under your approach.

 

[web730]

Well, whatever is "the wait and see" approach, I'm sure I'm against it. It doesn't sound good. I think Ive explained sufficiently how speech therapy went with me in my initial language acquisition. I'm curious to see how you and jillio feel about it. Would I have been better off if my mom taught me ASL first? or it wouldn't have mattered either way?

Your English skills are great, however. Still it would be better if your mom started teaching you ASL when you were a early child.

I started learning ASL when I was age 5 yet my parents didn't know signs at all except finger-spelling several years later and attended to a deaf school. So I was considered as a post-linguistic. Wish they knew the signs and taught me as a early child, the better I would be with the language skills.

 

[shel90]

Well, whatever is "the wait and see" approach, I'm sure I'm against it. It doesn't sound good. I think Ive explained sufficiently how speech therapy went with me in my initial language acquisition. I'm curious to see how you and jillio feel about it. Would I have been better off if my mom taught me ASL first? or it wouldn't have mattered either way?

We would never know..if your mom had taught you ASL first, maybe you would develop higher literacy skills but I cant make a judgement about u since I have never met u. For me, I believe I would have had a better self-esteem, socio-emotional health, higher literacy skills, and self-advocacy. It may have been different for u so it is hard to say cuz we were never taught ASL from the get go so we will never know.

 

[shezzbeav]

I'd start with Auslan, but as for spoken English, if my child is hearing... the TV might help out LOL and there's also my family members...

 

[jillio]

Well, whatever is "the wait and see" approach, I'm sure I'm against it. It doesn't sound good. I think Ive explained sufficiently how speech therapy went with me in my initial language acquisition. I'm curious to see how you and jillio feel about it. Would I have been better off if my mom taught me ASL first? or it wouldn't have mattered either way?

You language skills are certainly well developed, but there is no way to know what benefits you would have received without going back and doing it all over again. Just leave to say that early exposure to ASL has been shown to increase literacy via reading comprehension, complex problem solving skills, psycho-social development, and critical thinking skills.

 

[jillio]

I'd start with Auslan, but as for spoken English, if my child is hearing... the TV might help out LOL and there's also my family members...

A hearing child of a deaf parent can't help but be exposed to oral language unless you raise them in a sound proof bubble.

However, a deaf child without Auslan in your case, ASL in mine, doesn't have that same advantage.

Good to know you would give your child the benefits of signed language.

 

[Daredevel7]

Are you purposely being obtuse?

And you haven't answered the question regarding how you would insure that this child had 100% access to linguistic input under your approach.

I dont see how Im being obtuse..?

I'm speaking from a student sense, if you want to know how the child has 100% (who has 100% of anything anyway?) access to linguistic input as you said, you'll have to ask my audiologist/speech therapist, because she got it right for most of her clients. Judging from my speech therapy tapes, I would say it's because I responded to her verbal commands and mimicked them.

May I ask your connection to the deaf community?

 

[Angel]

I would start with SEE.

 

[web730]

I'd start with Auslan, but as for spoken English, if my child is hearing... the TV might help out LOL and there's also my family members...

I assumed that since the tv captions it should help deaf kids to learn English bit more yet we were told by the school superintendent that he found out the school kids are way behind with the reading... worse than the ones before the cc times. wtf? I pondered.

Interesting enough, it didn't help that much apparently. So we then believe that it has to do with the reading (books, not tv cc) like he mentioned that he plans to stress much more on reading especially in the school system underway.

 

[jillio]

I dont see how Im being obtuse..?

I'm speaking from a student sense, if you want to know how the child has 100% (who has 100% of anything anyway?) access to linguistic input as you said, you'll have to ask my audiologist/speech therapist, because she got it right for most of her clients. Judging from my speech therapy tapes, I would say it's because I responded to her verbal commands and mimicked them.

May I ask your connection to the deaf community?

I've already answered that question, less than 30 minutes ago, but I'll do it again. I have a profoundly deaf son, have been connected to the Deaf community for over 22 years, am a Master's level professional working in the field, and am completing my PhD. I am also fluent in ASL, SEE1, SEE2, and PSE.

 

[Daredevel7]

We would never know..if your mom had taught you ASL first, maybe you would develop higher literacy skills but I cant make a judgement about u since I have never met u. For me, I believe I would have had a better self-esteem, socio-emotional health, higher literacy skills, and self-advocacy. It may have been different for u so it is hard to say cuz we were never taught ASL from the get go so we will never know.

Great! That's all I ask for. I wanted to see people's responses and why (including their own personal experiences). I personally believe that ASL first would have limited me in indirect ways (family, work, so on). Of course, we don't know for sure. I just find it interesting to think about those kinda things.