Start with spoken language or ASL?

[rockdrummer]

There are some good arguments here for english as a first language.

"We chose total communication for our two children--they wear hearing aids. Their school used SEE along with speech, so there was no problem with them getting incomplete exposure to the language. Both children developed English as their first language and both excel in reading. We expect that they will take classes in ASL in high school and/or college, but in their early years, we were most interested in making sure that they had a firm foundation in the language they would be working with in their professional as well as personal lives the rest of their lives. Learning English as their first language has helped to ensure that they won't be dependent on someone who knows ASL to be around so that they can understand the happenings around them. And we felt that a strong foundation in English would equip them to find fulfilling jobs as adults; we assume that they'll rely on written communication even more than most people, so it made sense to us to make sure that they were as good at English as they would be!"
Source: Total Communication - Using Sign Language and Voice for Total Communication

 

[jillio]

Part of my point about deaf kids growing up to hearing parents is exactly that. I believe you are risking the childs ability to aquire language on a proper developmental schedule when fluent ASL is not prevalant in the childs surroundings. The family circle, school, peers etc. The reality is that its difficult enough for some people to aquire a L2 language let alone a manual language. I know this from personal experience. Certianly there are those that will learn faster than others but I contend that you are risking the childs exposure to langauge at a time when they need exposure to language. It's also why some non-signing hearing parents will opt for a CI for their child. Depending on when the child is implanted and if the CI is successful, the child would be exposed to langauge on a proper develepmental schedule.

Once delays have beeen remediated for, a proper developmental schedule could, in theory be adhered to. However, given that it takes approximately 2 years to remediate for a 1 year delay, and some of the cognitive consequences are never remediated for, chances are great that the consequences of a language delay will have lasting and, quite often, life long, consequences.

This is why it is important to provide fluent models. This can be accomplished, in the case of a less than fluent parent, through espousre to those that are fluent. A bi-bi environment educationally and through early intervention is an excellent way to accomplish this.

 

[jillio]

There are some good arguments here for english as a first language.

Anecdote. As well as containing some very incorrect assumptions.
But since you seem to be insistent on bringing TC into the discussion, here you go:

Goal:
Total Communication (TC) is an educational philosophy. “Total Communication can best be defined as eclectic, borrowing techniques form a variety of different methods.”110 Ideally teachers can use sign, writing, mime, speech, pictures or any other communication method that works. The method of communication should depend upon the needs of the student and the situation. In actual practice, most Total Communication programs use some form of Simultaneous Communication. Children are encouraged to work on speech and listening skills. “All children are encouraged to develop skill in all areas (sign language, speech and audition), although children are allowed to develop a mode of communication that is best for them.”111

Benefits:
A benefit of Total Communication is that it can provide a “safety net” for children who have difficulty following oral methods by using English that is supported by sign. It also allows the child some form of expressive communication.



Disadvantages:
One of the big disadvantages associated with Total Communication is that it tends to limit a child’s language experience. Children are never exposed to complex English or complex ASL. 112 “Dumbing down” both languages prevents children from attaining fluency in either language.



Total Communication Options

Total communication (TC), a term coined by Roy Holcomb in 1967, is the title of a philosophy of communication, not a method (Scouten, 1984). Total communication may involve one or several modes of communication (manual, oral, auditory, and written), depending on the particular needs of the child. The original expectation of TC was for teachers to use the communication method(s) most appropriate for a particular child at a particular stage of development. Therefore, there would be situations when spoken communication might be appropriate, other situations where signing might be appropriate, others that would call for written communication, and still others where simultaneous communication might work best (Solit, Taylor & Bednarczyk, 1992).
Total communication seemed to be the bridge that allowed a crossover from an oral-only philosophy to a philosophy that embraced sign language. During the 1970's and 1980's most schools and programs for children who are deaf, as well as most major organizations in the field supported the TC philosophy. Today, although the debate seems to be between TC programs and bilingual-bicultural programs, "simultaneous communication is the most common form of communication used in educational settings for deaf children" (Kaplan, 1996, p. 469).
Educating Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Total Communication. ERIC Digest

• The term Total Communication is often confused with “Simultaneous Communication” or “Sim-Comm,” which, unlike TC, is a methodology, not a philosophy. Simultaneous Communication refers simply to the simultaneous use of sign and spoken language. It is driven by the natural word order of English, and most often does not include function words and word endings. The completeness of the sign component of Sim-Comm is dependent on the skills of the signer.
•Although flexibility is at the very core of the TC philosophy and teachers are encouraged to use whatever communication tools are most effective for the individual child, it is often the predisposition, skills and experience of the teacher rather than the needs of the child that determines how Total Communication is implemented. An individual teacher may be very committed to the use of sign language, and in their enthusiasm to sign may neglect a child’s auditory and speech potential. Conversely, a teacher may lean toward the auditory/oral aspects of Total Communication and may not provide a child with sufficient sign support to optimize language development. The reality of Total Communication is often an “anything goes” methodology, lacking in objective measures, guidelines and strategies.
•A significant area of concern related to the simultaneous use of sign and spoken language is that the child does not get a clear representation of either English or American Sign Language (ASL). Given that ASL does not follow English word order, it cannot be “spoken.” Spoken language is, by nature, difficult to see on the lips, so the child is not getting the complete English message either. Some feel that is more effective to use either ASL without voice, or spoken English without sign. However, when used appropriately, sign can effectively facilitate the development of spoken language.
Hands & Voices :: Communication Considerations

 

[Cheri]

And Jillio that information/source stated the same similar as I provide on post #260 AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Start with spoken language or ASL?

Where it had stated that all TC program are not all the same If you think all TC are the same, then you're in one big surprise.

In some TC program teachers and children always speak and sign at the same time... that's called simcom. also there are some TC program where teachers may not speak and sign at the same time.

And you'll also see where it says that some TC program may use American Sign Language (ASL)ASL does not match spoken English. (that's when the teacher doesn't speak and sign the same time)

If you noticed on the post about "sign" it could mean any form of sign, I don't see where it says SEE was the problem.

 

[Daredevel7]

This is why it is important to provide fluent models. This can be accomplished, in the case of a less than fluent parent, through espousre to those that are fluent. A bi-bi environment educationally and through early intervention is an excellent way to accomplish this.

I agree with Jillio (finally! ) about providing a fluent model IN THE CASE of a less than fluent parents. We should have a "minimal" baseline model for deaf children. I'm just concerned for those who have a higher spoken language ability being "held back" by the accepted general model for deaf children.

 

[jillio]

And Jillio that information/source stated the same similar as I provide on post #260 AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Start with spoken language or ASL?

Where it had stated that all TC program are not all the same If you think all TC are the same, then you're in one big surprise.

In some TC program teachers and children always speak and sign at the same time... that's called simcom. also there are some TC program where teachers may not speak and sign at the same time.

And you'll also see where it says that some TC program may use American Sign Language (ASL)ASL does not match spoken English. (that's when the teacher doesn't speak and sign the same time)

If you noticed on the post about "sign" it could mean any form of sign, I don't see where it says SEE was the problem.

Then look again. It says it very plainly.

Likewise, the word "ecclectic" is not a desired term in reference to educational practice. It means operating without a strong theroetical base that has empirical support. In other words, flying by the seat of your pants. Hardly acceptable when educating children.

 

[jillio]

I agree with Jillio (finally! ) about providing a fluent model IN THE CASE of a less than fluent parents. We should have a "minimal" baseline model for deaf children. I'm just concerned for those who have a higher spoken language ability being "held back" by the accepted general model for deaf children.

Based on all the research, the child with a higher propensity for spoken language is not held back by the use of fluent sign. In fact, it has been shown to facillitate the development of spoken language.

A child is held back by not providing fluent and proper models of any one language, through conflicting linquistic information resulting from attempting to combine 2 languages into one, and by restricting the environment to one language only.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

I agree with Jillio (finally! ) about providing a fluent model IN THE CASE of a less than fluent parents. We should have a "minimal" baseline model for deaf children. I'm just concerned for those who have a higher spoken language ability being "held back" by the accepted general model for deaf children.

Do you all think I could fit that model? Haha.

 

[rockdrummer]

That link is a website. It doesn't support anything, And I never stated that sign language was not a part of TC. Please, if you are going to quote me, make sure that you make certain that you use my exact words.

I agree with Jillio (finally! ) about providing a fluent model IN THE CASE of a less than fluent parents. We should have a "minimal" baseline model for deaf children. I'm just concerned for those who have a higher spoken language ability being "held back" by the accepted general model for deaf children.

Reality check. Profoundly deaf child. Less than fluent ASL model by the parents will lessen the exposure to rich fluent langage to the child. Add to that the lack of ubiquity in programs offering ASL and the inability (for whatever reason) of immediate family and peers to be fluent signers. Don't you believe that would result in language delays?

 

[jillio]

Reality check. Profoundly deaf child. Less than fluent ASL model by the parents will lessen the exposure to rich fluent langage to the child. Add to that the lack of ubiquity in programs offering ASL and the inability (for whatever reason) of immediate family and peers to be fluent signers. Don't you believe that would result in language delays?

Reality check. Fluent models can be provided.

Reality check. A deaf infant does not start out needing ASl at a deaf adult conversational level.

Reality check. We use shortened and simplified English phrases when talking with hearing children. The same occurs with ASL. We increase the complexity as the child develops the skills needed to process more complex language.

Reality check. The ambiguity doesn't come from programs offering ASL as the language of instruction in the classroom. The ambiguity comes from the ecclectic (not desirable) nature of the TC programs.

 

[Daredevel7]

Based on all the research, the child with a higher propensity for spoken language is not held back by the use of fluent sign. In fact, it has been shown to facillitate the development of spoken language.

A child is held back by not providing fluent and proper models of any one language, through conflicting linquistic information resulting from attempting to combine 2 languages into one, and by restricting the environment to one language only.

What kind of evidence supports this? It sounds like the studies compared children who don't know ASL vs children who knows ASL and showed that children who know ASL are further along in development. I agree the MOST deaf children struggle with speech because its mostly aural. So of course, if they are struggling with it, they will fall behind their ASL peers. That much is obvious. Are there studies that show the development differences between children who have reached spoken language development without the aid of ASL, say... by 6 years old vs children who learned ASL?

 

[rockdrummer]

What kind of evidence supports this? It sounds like the studies compared children who don't know ASL vs children who knows ASL and showed that children who know ASL are further along in development. I agree the MOST deaf children struggle with speech because its mostly aural. So of course, if they are struggling with it, they will fall behind their ASL peers. That much is obvious. Are there studies that show the development differences between children who have reached spoken language development without the aid of ASL, say... by 6 years old vs children who learned ASL?

HA... good luck getting Jillio to cough up actual citings or sources. You will most likely get a response to the effect of " There are numeoruos studies that prove such a thing. You can find some on the internet, or in your local library or you can look through my 18,000 plus posts for references to them." :rl: To me that kind of response is symptomatic of someone with a hidden agenda.

 

[jillio]

What kind of evidence supports this? It sounds like the studies compared children who don't know ASL vs children who knows ASL and showed that children who know ASL are further along in development. I agree the MOST deaf children struggle with speech because its mostly aural. So of course, if they are struggling with it, they will fall behind their ASL peers. That much is obvious. Are there studies that show the development differences between children who have reached spoken language development without the aid of ASL, say... by 6 years old vs children who learned ASL?

Of course there are. These studies all use comparison groups.

 

[jillio]

HA... good luck getting Jillio to cough up actual citings or sources. You will most likely get a response to the effect of " There are numeoruos studies that prove such a thing. You can find some on the internet, or in your local library or you can look through my 18,000 plus posts for references to them." :rl: To me that kind of response is symptomatic of someone with a hidden agenda.

To me, this kind of response is symptomatic of someone too lazy to do their own research.

 

[rockdrummer]

To me, this kind of response is symptomatic of someone too lazy to do their own research.

I don't have a probem doing the research and when I have done so and make a claim from that research I am sure to provide a citing and source. There is where you and I differ I guess. You believe you can make claims of research findings without providing a source.. Again... that's fine if you choose to conduct yourself like that then your points will be taken as opinion. No skin off my neck.

 

[jillio]

I don't have a probem doing the research and when I have done so and make a claim from that research I am sure to provide a citing and source. There is where you and I differ I guess. You believe you can make claims of research findings without providing a source.. Again... that's fine if you choose to conduct yourself like that then your points will be taken as opinion. No skin off my neck.

That's because you are using the research as a direct quote, which is a quite different situation from having 20+ years of synthesized information at your disposal. I know what the research says, as I have spent any number of years reading and studying it. I have synthesized that information.

And posting reading and posting an abstract is only the first stage, RD. You need to carry it further than that. Please refer to my instructions as to what to do after you have located an abstract.

 

[sirena rossa]

if TC has been so effective as an educational methodology, why is it, after 30 years of use, we are continuing to see the same problems that we have seen since the Milan Conference in deaf children's academic functioning?

and what "same problems" are these?

 

[jillio]

and what "same problems" are these?

Unnaceptable literacy rates, less than fluent English skills, less than fluent ASL skills, ineffective critical thinking skills, lowered reading comprehension, difficulties with pragmatic use of language, and reduced problem solving skills just to name a few.

 

[rockdrummer]

That's because you are using the research as a direct quote, which is a quite different situation from having 20+ years of synthesized information at your disposal. I know what the research says, as I have spent any number of years reading and studying it. I have synthesized that information.

And posting reading and posting an abstract is only the first stage, RD. You need to carry it further than that. Please refer to my instructions as to what to do after you have located an abstract.

You really must think I am an idiot that I would need your instruction to get beyond an abstract or how to find research. You still don't get it.

 

[jillio]

You really must think I am an idiot that I would need your instruction to get beyond an abstract or how to find research. You still don't get it.

If you know how to do it, RD, then go about doing it and stop demanding that others do the work for you. Its very simple. If you want the research, go after it.

And you are inserting your own interpretation into my statements again. Please stop doing that.