Start with spoken language or ASL?

[doofenslim]

What have I said that is "so true?" I think you just totally missed my point.

I have seen deaf children from deaf families have horrible literacy skills.[/QUOTE]

I have seen hearing children from hearing families have horrible literacy skills.

I know that and I've agreed with that post. What you're quoting was a response to a post shel90 made.

You mentioned effort, its true that the effort that parents are willing to make do make a difference.

 

[Daredevel7]

You mentioned effort, its true that the effort that parents are willing to make do make a difference.

I definitely agree with this.

 

[sirena rossa]

I can tell you that I started speech therapy when I was 3 years old. Im asking, why not try out speech therapy for spoken language for several months or even a year, and see if they at least progress, then if not, ASL then? I know some people said "why not BiBi?", the thing Im apprehensive about is that since ASL is so much easier than speaking, why would the child do both equally?

I agree with u there - i would be apprehensive about starting off with ASL first. i believe that the child should be taught to speak FIRST (assuming the child isn't totally deaf and either has an implant or hearing aids). That should come before anything else because the brain absorbs best while young. Granted, it will be difficult and will take patience and persistence. But its worth it to see if it progresses with the child. if it does, great. if it does not, then start accompanying ASL with it. I am not so sure about the child being taught speech & ASL at the same time because speech is, naturally, more of a challenge. and the child may favor the easier way (i.e. ASL).
don't get me wrong, I am by all means not against ASL at all. I think its wonderful, and its a fantastic option to have. I just believe that, concerning an infant/young child, the attempt and training him/her to do speech should be done by default first.

 

[Wokamuka]

We keep trying to make this so difficult, and the answers really are simple. Its just a matter of what effort you are willing to make.

Your effort as a parent defines your child's development. That is given.

Sadly, there is a socio-economic observation: the wealthier you are born into; the more likely you'd be oral.

 

[jillio]

I agree with u there - i would be apprehensive about starting off with ASL first. i believe that the child should be taught to speak FIRST (assuming the child isn't totally deaf and either has an implant or hearing aids). That should come before anything else because the brain absorbs best while young. Granted, it will be difficult and will take patience and persistence. But its worth it to see if it progresses with the child. if it does, great. if it does not, then start accompanying ASL with it. I am not so sure about the child being taught speech & ASL at the same time because speech is, naturally, more of a challenge. and the child may favor the easier way (i.e. ASL).
don't get me wrong, I am by all means not against ASL at all. I think its wonderful, and its a fantastic option to have. I just believe that, concerning an infant/young child, the attempt and training him/her to do speech should be done by default first.

And while you are doing all that directive teaching, how do you plan to remediate the delays in acquisition that are created in the process?

If ASL is the easier way for a deaf child to acquire language, doesn't that tell you something?

If concentrating on speech is done at the sacrifice of acquiring language at the native level, how exactly has that child been provided an advantage?

 

[jillio]

Your effort as a parent defines your child's development. That is given.

Sadly, there is a socio-economic observation: the wealthier you are born into; the more likely you'd be oral.

That is factual, as well.

 

[shel90]

I agree with u there - i would be apprehensive about starting off with ASL first. i believe that the child should be taught to speak FIRST (assuming the child isn't totally deaf and either has an implant or hearing aids). That should come before anything else because the brain absorbs best while young. Granted, it will be difficult and will take patience and persistence. But its worth it to see if it progresses with the child. if it does, great. if it does not, then start accompanying ASL with it. I am not so sure about the child being taught speech & ASL at the same time because speech is, naturally, more of a challenge. and the child may favor the easier way (i.e. ASL).
don't get me wrong, I am by all means not against ASL at all. I think its wonderful, and its a fantastic option to have. I just believe that, concerning an infant/young child, the attempt and training him/her to do speech should be done by default first.

and put the children at risks for language delays and cognitivie processing deficients? No thanks.

I have seen what happens when kids do not pick up on spoken language and introduced to ASL later on...because of the critical years lost on language development, they struggle with abstract thoughts and literacy skills. It is very wrong to put children through that because it is not their responsibility to make up for the deficients in their language development.

 

[shel90]

Sounds like you have a lot of build up anger to what happened to you years ago.

I attended mainstreamed programs and did not have any problems. I ended up in honor classes just fine.

I will never be fluent in ASL because the window of opportunity for native language acquisition is closed at five years old and didn't pick up ASL until my teens. I don't have a problem with it.

I learned ASL at the age of 25 and I am pretty fluent in it. It took me 5 years.

Yes, I am angry cuz my rights to full appropriate access to education was denied. I dont accept any less and I didnt have the same advantage as my hearing peers did growing up because I missed out on what was said in the classes. Sure, academically, I cam out fine but I probably wasnt able to perform to my maximum potential due to the contant work of trying to keep up. Maybe, for you that's ok but for me, that is not right. I didnt realize that until I learned ASL and experienced classes taught in ASL and I was like WOW! I could understand everyone at all times without terps, notetakers, or playing catch up. It was freeing!

 

[shel90]

This seems to have an easy answer: simply ASL because it's easier. However you are only accounting UP until the end of school. What happens afterwards? The child has learned ASL his WHOLE life, then bam whammo? Out in the real world?

My brother is Deaf and grew up using ASL all of his life. Has no oral skills and he is getting his Master's at a private college. He seems to be doing fine along with so many of my Deaf friends who grew up using ASL. As long as they have knowledge, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, literacy skills and self-advocating skills, they will be fine and I have seen proof of itin the 13 years since I have been involved with the Deaf community.

I see from your introduction thread, you saiid you dont have any deaf friends so it is understandable that you do not know much about Deaf culture and deaf signers.

 

[shel90]

I am not sure why you dissociated speech from language and literacy development... Doesn't speech reinforce language and even literacy development? Especially when compared to ASL? If you were talking about SEE I understand, but ASL does not have the same structure as written skills while spoken English/SEE does. When you are a child, do you learn language from communication or reading first? Obviously communication, so language builds from there. You said " If a child is capable of learning spoken English, he or she will be able to accomplish that at the time frame they r ready for." But how would you know if the child is capable of learning spoken English if you start teaching ASL first?

I am a teacher of the deaf and I have seen proof of this in the last 10 years.

Speech is not language. It is a mode of communication.

 

[shel90]

I am amazed at the ignorance out there about language development and ASL but then again, before I studied language development, linguistics, and education, I was just as ignorance. Reading all these posts reminds me of the old days when I used to believe that all deaf children should learn oral skills first and that ASL was to blame for the poor literacy skills! Boy, I was totally PROVED wrong big time and I am glad I was proved wrong too.

 

[Daredevel7]

I am amazed at the ignorance out there about language development and ASL but then again, before I studied language development, linguistics, and education, I was just as ignorance. Reading all these posts reminds me of the old days when I used to believe that all deaf children should learn oral skills first and that ASL was to blame for the poor literacy skills! Boy, I was totally PROVED wrong big time and I am glad I was proved wrong too.

I knew putting in the fact that I did not know many deaf people will bite me in the ass, eventually. There is a difference between "You MUST teach that child how to talk first, NO MATTER WHAT" and "Lets try testing out the capability of teaching that child how to talk first....and if it doesn't work, try ASL." Why not take advantage of the fact the child has a good chance to do spoken English? Spoken English DOES reinforce literacy skills. I can cite you sources if you'd like. I'm not dumb enough to say something like that without evidence backing me up.

I understand where your anger (and quite a lot of it) is coming from, but that shouldn't automatically force every child to be taught ASL because "it's the most natural form of communication." which is just a nicer way to say "easier way". I feel that more thought has to be put into this. After all you did say that gaining literacy/language skills is vital in early childhood. I'm curious, you mentioned poor literacy skills. Do you believe that the deaf population have a lower rate of literacy? If so, can you tell me why? Is it simply because parents sat "Oy uhh a deaf baby, uuuh I don't know what to do with it!"

P.S. I don't appreciate being indirectly called ignorant. I am making the effort to come here, learn about the Deaf culture. I already know a lot about it in the general sense. I want to know what Deaf people think about certain things, thats why I asked such a specific question for this thread. I have tried to be diplomat, but I can see already that it's hard to be nice here. Are people who don't know much about Deaf culture not welcome here?

 

[Cheri]

P.S. I don't appreciate being indirectly called ignorant. I am making the effort to come here, learn about the Deaf culture. I already know a lot about it in the general sense. I want to know what Deaf people think about certain things, thats why I asked such a specific question for this thread. I have tried to be diplomat, but I can see already that it's hard to be nice here. Are people who don't know much about Deaf culture not welcome here?

Of course you are more than welcome here, that's the reason why we have a discussion forum to learn from one another. Some deaf people may not find speech the best mode of communication for the deaf, however I disagree, I think it is the best mode of communication so is sign language. But, during the first months of the baby's life, I think sign language should be taught before the baby learns spoken language. Teaching a deaf baby to speak is very hard to distinguish between voices and other sounds because we don't know how much resident hearing or hearing loss that a deaf baby has. When deaf babies born to hearing parents--they are not always so lucky, but there are stories out there of hearing parents who had done an outstanding job at giving their deaf child the right education, some of them successful even in an oral education, or total communication, or bi-bi or cued speech.

 

[shel90]

I knew putting in the fact that I did not know many deaf people will bite me in the ass, eventually. There is a difference between "You MUST teach that child how to talk first, NO MATTER WHAT" and "Lets try testing out the capability of teaching that child how to talk first....and if it doesn't work, try ASL." Why not take advantage of the fact the child has a good chance to do spoken English? Spoken English DOES reinforce literacy skills. I can cite you sources if you'd like. I'm not dumb enough to say something like that without evidence backing me up.

I understand where your anger (and quite a lot of it) is coming from, but that shouldn't automatically force every child to be taught ASL because "it's the most natural form of communication." which is just a nicer way to say "easier way". I feel that more thought has to be put into this. After all you did say that gaining literacy/language skills is vital in early childhood. I'm curious, you mentioned poor literacy skills. Do you believe that the deaf population have a lower rate of literacy? If so, can you tell me why? Is it simply because parents sat "Oy uhh a deaf baby, uuuh I don't know what to do with it!"

P.S. I don't appreciate being indirectly called ignorant. I am making the effort to come here, learn about the Deaf culture. I already know a lot about it in the general sense. I want to know what Deaf people think about certain things, thats why I asked such a specific question for this thread. I have tried to be diplomat, but I can see already that it's hard to be nice here. Are people who don't know much about Deaf culture not welcome here?

The wait and try approach is why so many deaf children come to my programs with language delays. Nothing to do with how I was raised.

Iam only angry about the opportunities I missed as a child for the sake of spoken language but I am not angry nor irrational enough to transfer it to the kids. When I started out as a teacher, I wasn't even thinking of how I was raised when I formed my views with ASL being available to all deaf children. It is the constant influx of older deaf kids coming from mainstreamed programs whether TC, oral, or SEE who fell so far behind that and when they learned ASL, it was discovered that their first language was very weak hence the struggle with developing literacy skills. That was when I learned the importance of full access to language is for these children and since there is no guarantee that every child would pick up on spoken English and establish fluency in it like their hearing counterparts but with ASL, they wil be able to develop a strong first language and be ready to read and write upon entering school. My anger has nothing to do with it. If I came across as pissed off here then my apologies.

We r all ignorant about some things...is that such a bad thing? Or should I say uneducated but then some people might get offended. I was ignorant about ASL and the Deaf culture before my experiences and it doesn't make me stupid or anything. Just not knowledgeable about it and I used to make the same opinions based on my ignorance. If people don't like that word, then what's a better word to use?

I have been in the field of Deaf ed for a long time and I have students who learned ASL first understand and develop literacy skills in English just fine.

U are right, spoken English does reinforce literacy skills just like any language does, including ASL. The problem lies with spoken English is meant to be processed auditorally not visually. Even with lipreading, in most ideal situations, a deaf child still misses out a lot and for a child whose language that is still developing, it is risky.

My last post was about how amazed I had forgotten my old views as an oral-only deaf person with little or no understanding of ASL and how it impacted language development. Nothing personal. My apologies if it came out that way.

Let's say that with some deaf children who have been exposed to spoken language only as the wait and see approach do not pick up on it, by the age of 3 or 4,their language level is at the 18 month old rage. Then they r finally exposed to ASL at 4, they have to start from stratch and by the time they are fluent, they could be 7 or 8 years old and then they are ready to learn how to read and write but have to start with kindergarten or 1st grade writing because one can't expect to read at 3rd grade level as soon as their language development has been established to a strong first language so that delays them even further.

For deaf children who have been exposed to ASL since birth, by the time they enter school, they have established a strong first language and r ready like any hearing kids their age to start learning reading and writing.

I prefer the latter scenario because it is the children's rights to have full access to language, education, and communication in the educational setting. At the home, that's between the parents and their children. I do not dictate what language should be used at the home but I do encourage parents to learn ASL, SEE or CS.


In the educational setting where learning takes place, I feel strongly about giving all children rights to full access to everything, not partial or none. I had ver little access to everything because with lipreading, I couldn't catch what everyone was saying at all times. Children do not deserve it.

That's why I have these views and beliefs.

 

[society's_child]

This one's for you Shel:

 

[Daredevel7]

Of course you are more than welcome here, that's the reason why we have a discussion forum to learn from one another. Some deaf people may not find speech the best mode of communication for the deaf, however I disagree, I think it is the best mode of communication so is sign language. But, during the first months of the baby's life, I think sign language should be taught before the baby learns spoken language. Teaching a deaf baby to speak is very hard to distinguish between voices and other sounds because we don't know how much resident hearing or hearing loss that a deaf baby has. When deaf babies born to hearing parents--they are not always so lucky, but there are stories out there of hearing parents who had done an outstanding job at giving their deaf child the right education, some of them successful even in an oral education, or total communication, or bi-bi or cued speech.

Thanks Cheri. All I'm saying is that I don't think that trying to teach a child speech first should be automatically thrown out. I know some, if not most, audiologists now encourage the child to get a CI and speak. However, when I was born and they found out that I was deaf (18 months old), the audiologists back then ('82-'84) told my mom to teach me sign language right away, and my mom even started taking an ASL class. However, soon after, my mom started talking to an audiologist who thought I can start speech therapy right away. So I did, and I am thankful to my mom and audiologist for it. I know at least 5 out of 6 other clients of this same audiologist I mentioned who learned to speak and was mainstreamed by kindergarten. So it makes me wonder if parents/audiologists have a lack of faith in their child's capability and go straight to ASL because speech is too difficult.

 

[Daredevel7]

Let's say that with some deaf children who have been exposed to spoken language only as the wait and see approach do not pick up on it, by the age of 3 or 4,their language level is at the 18 month old rage. Then they r finally exposed to ASL at 4, they have to start from stratch and by the time they are fluent, they could be 7 or 8 years old and then they are ready to learn how to read and write but have to start with kindergarten or 1st grade writing because one can't expect to read at 3rd grade level as soon as their language development has been established to a strong first language so that delays them even further.

Four years old is too late for me. If I wasn't progressing by 2-3 years old, my mom would definitely have resorted to ASL.

I'm glad to know that I can continue becoming less "ignorant" (perhaps "becoming better educated" is better! ). I can't say that I changed my mind, but at least I definitely would understand why people teach ASL first.

 

[Daredevel7]

Shel, since you're experienced in the field of deaf education, would you do me the honors of helping me create the pros and cons of each of the 2 scenarios below? Anyone else can help! I could be totally wrong, but at least its a start.

1) Teaching ASL first
Pro - Child is MORE likely will develop language/communication, and possibly quicker than spoken English.
Con - Speech is more likely to be delayed. Being mainstreamed is more likely to be delayed.

2) Teaching Spoken English first
Pro - Child learns language/communication and speech simultaneously and can be mainstreamed much earlier.
Con - Child is LESS likely to develop language/communication. Language is more likely to be delayed. Being mainstreamed is more likely to be delayed if child does not respond well to spoken English.

Does that just about sum it up?

 

[jillio]

The wait and try approach is why so many deaf children come to my programs with language delays. Nothing to do with how I was raised.

Iam only angry about the opportunities I missed as a child for the sake of spoken language but I am not angry nor irrational enough to transfer it to the kids. When I started out as a teacher, I wasn't even thinking of how I was raised when I formed my views with ASL being available to all deaf children. It is the constant influx of older deaf kids coming from mainstreamed programs whether TC, oral, or SEE who fell so far behind that and when they learned ASL, it was discovered that their first language was very weak hence the struggle with developing literacy skills. That was when I learned the importance of full access to language is for these children and since there is no guarantee that every child would pick up on spoken English and establish fluency in it like their hearing counterparts but with ASL, they wil be able to develop a strong first language and be ready to read and write upon entering school. My anger has nothing to do with it. If I came across as pissed off here then my apologies.

We r all ignorant about some things...is that such a bad thing? Or should I say uneducated but then some people might get offended. I was ignorant about ASL and the Deaf culture before my experiences and it doesn't make me stupid or anything. Just not knowledgeable about it and I used to make the same opinions based on my ignorance. If people don't like that word, then what's a better word to use?

I have been in the field of Deaf ed for a long time and I have students who learned ASL first understand and develop literacy skills in English just fine.

U are right, spoken English does reinforce literacy skills just like any language does, including ASL. The problem lies with spoken English is meant to be processed auditorally not visually. Even with lipreading, in most ideal situations, a deaf child still misses out a lot and for a child whose language that is still developing, it is risky.

My last post was about how amazed I had forgotten my old views as an oral-only deaf person with little or no understanding of ASL and how it impacted language development. Nothing personal. My apologies if it came out that way.

Let's say that with some deaf children who have been exposed to spoken language only as the wait and see approach do not pick up on it, by the age of 3 or 4,their language level is at the 18 month old rage. Then they r finally exposed to ASL at 4, they have to start from stratch and by the time they are fluent, they could be 7 or 8 years old and then they are ready to learn how to read and write but have to start with kindergarten or 1st grade writing because one can't expect to read at 3rd grade level as soon as their language development has been established to a strong first language so that delays them even further.

For deaf children who have been exposed to ASL since birth, by the time they enter school, they have established a strong first language and r ready like any hearing kids their age to start learning reading and writing.

I prefer the latter scenario because it is the children's rights to have full access to language, education, and communication in the educational setting. At the home, that's between the parents and their children. I do not dictate what language should be used at the home but I do encourage parents to learn ASL, SEE or CS.


In the educational setting where learning takes place, I feel strongly about giving all children rights to full access to everything, not partial or none. I had ver little access to everything because with lipreading, I couldn't catch what everyone was saying at all times. Children do not deserve it.

That's why I have these views and beliefs.

 

[jillio]

Shel, since you're experienced in the field of deaf education, would you do me the honors of helping me create the pros and cons of each of the 2 scenarios below? Anyone else can help! I could be totally wrong, but at least its a start.

1) Teaching ASL first
Pro - Child is MORE likely will develop language/communication, and possibly quicker than spoken English.
Con - Speech is more likely to be delayed. Being mainstreamed is more likely to be delayed.

2) Teaching Spoken English first
Pro - Child learns language/communication and speech simultaneously and can be mainstreamed much earlier.
Con - Child is LESS likely to develop language/communication. Language is more likely to be delayed. Being mainstreamed is more likely to be delayed if child does not respond well to spoken English.

Does that just about sum it up?

It is much more complicated than that. The development of several cognivitive abilities and appropriate psychological development is dependent upon language acquisition. Accquisition is not a directive learning process, but a process that occurs largely impassively through exposure and incidental learning. Unless a child is exposed to a language that permits this acquisition, it does not occur as intended and in the most beneficial way for the child. A child with any degree of hearing loss is prevented from acquiring spoken language in this manner. However, they are not prevented from acquiring visual language in this manner, and when given the opportunity, in fact, acquire language at the same rate as their hearing peers, thus preventing cognitive, psychological, and social delays.

Delays in language acquisition do not just affect the child's language skills, but their ability to develop several important psychological concepts that are necessary for optimal functioning. Language delays result in academic difficulties, problem solving difficulties, the development of theory of mind, social difficulties, and a greater incidence of self esteem and identity problems. Language delays are an all enclompassing problem that affect more than the child's ability to speak. The affect the entire child and that child's functioning across all domains.

Placing a child in an environment that denies them the opportunity to acquire language through their strongest sense creates compounded problems that traverse the child's entire existence.