Start with spoken language or ASL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Now, if you can show me a way to insure, from the very beginning, that the child has the potential to function in an oral only environment to the degree that they aren't experiencing deficits that lead to language gaps, I will be glad to see that. However, to date, none of the professionals have been able to come up with such a solution.
Click to expand...

How about this? Let's say that the professionals have come up with some crazy solution that will take 1/8th of a second to determine if a child has high enough skills to do oral without ASL, would you still advocate ASL over spoken English?
 
jillio said:
Because a month is not long enough to create a situation where input starts to show reliable results. By the very nature of what is being proposed, time has to lapse in order to see if results are obtained.

Unless of course, you are going to take a child making a couple of vocal approximations as indication that they are developing language. But that is a risky thing indeed.

Deaf babies will often babble vocally, as well. Is that an idication that they will develop spoken language skills on par with their hearing peers? How long do we wait to see if language develops? In the past, the reccomendation has been the age of 2.5 years. If they haven't begun to show indications of developing age appropriate oral language by that age, then start to investigate why. That is 2.5 years without linguistic input that allows the child to acquire and internalize language. For that 2.5 years, you will need at least 5 years remediation work to bring them to age level speech production. In the meantime, they are constantly playing catch-up, so there is no time to tend to the developmental tasks they should be completing. It is a circular effect that never ends.

Now, if you can show me a way to insure, from the very beginning, that the child has the potential to function in an oral only environment to the degree that they aren't experiencing deficits that lead to language gaps, I will be glad to see that. However, to date, none of the professionals have been able to come up with such a solution.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly my speech therapist thought from the very beginning that I had potential to function in an oral only environment. I certainly don't have any language gaps, nor was I ever behind in school. I have actually had a deaf school (which used oralism as a primary means of communication and signed as a secondary) REJECT me because THEY felt I would have been limited (this was when I was 4 yrs old). Trained and experienced professionals and therapists, i believe, will be able tell how much of a chance the child has to do well with learning speech first.

This is the impression I get from u: u think that because the GENERAL population of deaf children typically do better with ASL 1st, Oral 2nd. And I am saying that if this child happens to be one who will excel in an oral environment, then by starting with ASL first, that child is totally cheated out of a wonderful opportunity to learn speech first.
Because the bottom line is: once the FIRST language (regardless of which one it is) is learned, the desire of learning a 2nd language decreases and the challenge of learning it increases.
Since spoken language is MORE challenging by nature, doesn't make more sense to try this one first?
 
shel90 said:
.......I say BIBI with ASL as the first language and English the 2nd language.........
Click to expand...
While that may work for some there really is not enough evidence or studies that suggest it's best in all cases. The notion that there is one best way to educate a deaf child is false. I am not saying that bibi is right or wrong. Just that for some taking the english / spoken language route first may yield success just as it might for some to learn ASL first. There is no silver bullet.
 
Daredevel7 said:
How about this? Let's say that the professionals have come up with some crazy solution that will take 1/8th of a second to determine if a child has high enough skills to do oral without ASL, would you still advocate ASL over spoken English?
Click to expand...

Lets stick to the reality of the situation, shall we?
 
sirena rossa said:
Well, clearly my speech therapist thought from the very beginning that I had potential to function in an oral only environment. I certainly don't have any language gaps, nor was I ever behind in school. I have actually had a deaf school (which used oralism as a primary means of communication and signed as a secondary) REJECT me because THEY felt I would have been limited (this was when I was 4 yrs old). Trained and experienced professionals and therapists, i believe, will be able tell how much of a chance the child has to do well with learning speech first.

And a deaf child still has to reach a certain age before that can be determined. A newborn that has been red flagged for hearing loss certainly can't give any indication of whether they will have a propensity to develop oral language or not. Nor will a 6 month old or a 12 month old. The child still has to reach an age of 2 before any delays in language can be even remotely anticiapted. In the meantime, you have a 2 year old that has not been receiving adaquate linguistic input, has not been able to acquire the fundamentals of language usage, and is starting out with a 2 year delay all based on the fact that you have decided to keep them in a linguistically deprived environment that does not allow them to access the information they need.

This is the impression I get from u: u think that because the GENERAL population of deaf children typically do better with ASL 1st, Oral 2nd. And I am saying that if this child happens to be one who will excel in an oral environment, then by starting with ASL first, that child is totally cheated out of a wonderful opportunity to learn speech first.
And, as Ih ave told you before, as have many others...good for you. But this isn't the case for the majority. Policy needs to be set on the majority. If you don't need those services, great. No one forces you to take advantage of them. But we cannot decide educational or linguistic policy for the majority based on you.
Because the bottom line is: once the FIRST language (regardless of which one it is) is learned, the desire of learning a 2nd language decreases and the challenge of learning it increases.

The above is completely false statement. It has been proven time and time again that the acquisition of a strong L1 language makes learning an L2 language much easier. Likewise, the statement regarding L1 reducing the interest in learning an L2 is absurd. What oralist told you that bunk?
Since spoken language is MORE challenging by nature, doesn't make more sense to try this one first?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Do you ask a child to walk before they can sit up? Do you ask a student to do calculus before you have taught them addition and subtraction? To ask a child to engage in that which is more challenging without providing them first the fundamentals they need to rise to that challenge is bizarre and utterly illogical.
 
rockdrummer said:
While that may work for some there really is not enough evidence or studies that suggest it's best in all cases. The notion that there is one best way to educate a deaf child is false. I am not saying that bibi is right or wrong. Just that for some taking the english / spoken language route first may yield success just as it might for some to learn ASL first. There is no silver bullet.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about all cases. We are talking about a majority of cases. If you don't want your deaf child in a bi-bi environment, don't enroll them in a bi-bi school. But also be willing to accept all the consequences of your decision.
 
shel90 said:
If it is so true, then how did deaf children from deaf families scored on par with their hearing counterparts for literacy skills according to research. U have to find out the educational backgrounds of those with horrible English..were they language delayed and learned ASL lanter? Were they in educational settings where teachers were unable to teach them properly? There r many factors..can't blame ASL for it.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. The problem as I see it is that when people start with speech and only go on to signing when that is failed the child misses out valueble learning time so of course when they eventually do get taught ASL there language is bad as they were oral rejects.

They are now finding benifits of using baby signs with everyone including hearing babies so it makes more sense for deaf babies to be given baby signs then progress to ASL, after which they can learn written and spoken english.

Incidently I view written english as being more valueble as a deafblind person in communicating with the outside world. If a person has written english they can use pen and paper, mobile etc... and communicate with anybody anywhere.

If a person is language deprived from learning speech and only semi literate that person is going to end up not being able to communicate so well. Particularly if they have failed to pick up speach but sometimes even if they are an 'oral success' but still have difficulties in communicating their needs.
 
jillio said:
Lets stick to the reality of the situation, shall we?
Click to expand...

My question has a purpose. It is to see if you believe that a deaf child having higher oral skills would make a difference in how s/he should be taught. If you believe that it does not make a difference, then bi-bi would work for them too, right? I'm striving for an ideal world. In a school, there is a minimum baseline in terms of development of a student based on their age/grade. However, some kids advance to the next grade. This school ALLOWS them to, because their method allows a minimum level of progression but does not have a maximum. This allows BOTH the general population and advanced kids to progress at their own individual rate. I'm trying to apply the same concept to the development of deaf children. Maybe I'm being naive, but at least Im thinking about it rather than automatically pointing one specific method.
 
jillio said:
We aren't talking about all cases. We are talking about a majority of cases. If you don't want your deaf child in a bi-bi environment, don't enroll them in a bi-bi school. But also be willing to accept all the consequences of your decision.
Click to expand...
where is the evidence that supports your claim? There aren't enough bibi schools and/or programs available to make it a viable option and lets not forget that some that claim to be bibi really are not. Consequences? Really? Your crystal ball works better than mine?
 
Daredevel7 said:
My question has a purpose. It is to see if you believe that a deaf child having higher oral skills would make a difference in how s/he should be taught. If you believe that it does not make a difference, then bi-bi would work for them too, right? I'm striving for an ideal world. In a school, there is a minimum baseline in terms of development of a student based on their age/grade. However, some kids advance to the next grade. This school ALLOWS them to, because their method allows a minimum level of progression but does not have a maximum. This allows BOTH the general population and advanced kids to progress at their own individual rate. I'm trying to apply the same concept to the development of deaf children. Maybe I'm being naive, but at least Im thinking about it rather than automatically pointing one specific method.
Click to expand...
Anyone that limits pedagogy to a single approach is really doing more of a disservice especially when there is insufficient evidence to prove that it works for the majority. The viability of the claims really are not a sufficient foundation for such an argument.
 
imdeafsowhat said:
I suppose I could say that SEE is the way to go if you failed the spoken language. SEE will help your spoken language greatly, because it is exact english.
Click to expand...

while i personally do not know SEE, that does seem to be the better choice when it comes down to SEE vs. ASL. if SEE if closer to spoken english then it will help the childs comprehension of it. ASL, it seems to me, would actually further confuse them since placement of words and grammar structure is different.
almost like english vs. spanish (or even french) where its like adjective/noun vs. noun/adjective. (for example "green tea" vs. "te verte" - i.e. tea green)
 
Jiro said:
huh? insulting? OK What I'm referring to is a person who cannot see at all. A COMPLETE loss of eyesight. Obviously a blind person cannot read nor write (but very difficult!) english. Same for a deaf person cannot hear nor speak (but very difficult!)
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Have you never heard of Braille. Braille is a system of raised dots that is based on the printed language with contractions for short cuts but blind people CAN read.

There is (or was) a machine called an opticon which turned print from books into tactile print for blind to feel with their fingers.

Deafblind people often rely on writing on palm of hand the way I do with people who don't know the deafblind manual.

Some blind people can even learn tactile sign language. Although due to the missunderstandings that this method is not possible for us, often a deafblind person gets denied the chance to learn.

I was orally raised (with a mild hearing loss that progressively got worse) but I find having a good grasp of written english far more useful as a deafblind person then having speach.

I could manage without speech at all but I could never manage without written english.
 
rockdrummer said:
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?
Click to expand...

My son's 3 year old friend is a perfect example of proving this wrong.
 
sirena rossa said:
imdeafsowhat, i totally applaud ur statements! (esp. whats bolded) and i agree with a lot of what u said, it reflects my own opinion as well. I don't think this thread should be locked either because we all ARE learning different things here. I am new to this forum and the main reason why i joined was cuz i don't really know many deaf people (except for one my best friends who was raised 100% oral like me, mainstream, etc.) And i wanted to see the flipside of the coin. AND to show others MY p.o.v. on topics. everyone's lives and experiences are different. I didn't even really know for sure what SEE was till this forum. As of now, it seems like SEE is more versatile and probably gives a deaf child a better understanding of what the spoken English language is like. Which sounds like a much better option to have the child learn.

Regarding the topic of starting with spoken language vs. ASL, this is my own personal view: I think that if u start with teaching the child ASL only, then it becomes a crutch. Then when u go to teach the child speech, it will only be more difficult for them to comprehend because they already know ASL and its easier, so pffft why bother learning the more challenging one? thus the child becomes pretty limited in means of communication with everyone. Now, if u start with spoken language - the more challenging option. It will be easier to learn (assuming the child has the capability cuz i do realize that in some cases the actual degree of the hearing loss is a huge factor) and THEN learn ASL or SEE. then the child won't be limited AND will have a much better understanding of what speech is like than if s/he started off with just ASL. And I know quite a few speech therapists who will agree with me on that.
Click to expand...

Not true.
 
I just realized that language delays are hard to define when you have nothing to compare it to. Most people believe that deaf children will never have the same rate as hearing people in every aspect of development (including speech). So why bother comparing to hearing people. When people say that they have learned ______ fine (whether it is language, speech, writing, so on), maybe they don't realize that if they did something differently they may have developed it sooner. Language delays for deaf people is too hard to define since we have nothing to compare it to, or do we?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Why is everyone assuming that trying out spoken language takes a long time? You can't even try one month? Just one measly month to test out the capabilities? I know Jillio will say "Even one month has repercussions!" How about a week?

Is it safe to assume that no one thinks its worth taking advantage of a deaf child's high lipreading/oral skills? Is it simply because "Well, if s/he has such high skills for speaking, s/he will eventually talk anyway, so what's the problem?"
Click to expand...


Even hearing kids do not develop spoken language in one month. Takes years.
 
shel90 said:
Maybe for you but I know two deaf guys who grew up ASL who are engineers at IMB in New York City. Like I said, it has never been proved that ASL has limited deaf people as many of my friends proved all the stereotypings out there wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing. When I started my thread on BiBi success stories that was the kind of success that I was looking for. Maybe I just used the wrong words but I'd be very greatful if you could repost about your friend's successes on that thread too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top