Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[AlleyCat]

One thing I've never understood was the statistics and rates implying that deaf literacy rates are very low. I'm not disputing the statistics - they have to be out there somewhere - let me show you an example here. When I was applying to RIT (not NTID - NTID is an AAS program whereas RIT is a BA program and deaf students attending RIT can utilize NTID services such as interpreters, etc.) my parents and I were told that an 8th grade reading level was all that was required for admission -- for those of you who don't know, deaf students did not have to conform to RIT's admissions standards, but rather NTID's, whether we were attending NTID or RIT. I had to take two tests during orientation that, depending on the results, would place me at either remedial math and English, or college-level math and English. (I did so well on both that I was at college-level, but that's besides the point.)

My point is .. while during all my school years, I had my own IEP plan, IEP teacher, speech therapist, and interpreter. I was in a high school of 2,000 with TWO other deaf people; all 3 of us were in the same grade. We each had our own IEP plan (we did share the same IEP teacher but had different "sessions" with her, it was not a group session), our own individual time with the speech therapist and our own interpreters. Because I was at a more advanced level than the other 2, I took more advanced classes by myself so I had my own interpeter. I went on to graduate #77 in my class out of 500, and the other 2 did quite well for themselves as well. And in my school district, we had several other schools that had the exact same thing going on as mine, and most of the deaf students succeeded just as well as I did.

So .. from what I saw while growing up, my question is, where do the low literacy rates come from? We all were part of the bi-bi (or TC) programs in which we had access to everything. I do see that the MN state school for the deaf did not have as high success rates, but not everyone attended that school. In fact, as far as I'm aware of, there were far more of us NOT attending the deaf school than were...

 

[Cheri]

Please see the post above. I suggest you retract your statement that there is no research to support the hypothesis. I have clearly shown that there is.

Can you at least tell me how many bi-bi programs are out there? Let's not forget that bi bi is a newly program and it's not well known yet based on research.

 

[Bottesini]

Survey of Residential and Day Schools for Deaf Students in the United States That Identify Themselves as Bilingual-Bicultural Programs -- LaSasso and Lollis 8 (1): 79 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

The purpose of this survey was to determine how many residential and day schools for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the United States described themselves as bilingual-bicultural (BiBi) programs and to describe characteristics of those programs related to initial implementation, whether a single language (e.g., English or ASL) is promoted as the first language (L1) and the language of instruction for all deaf students, how English is conveyed conversationally to deaf students, the quality of ASL abilities of BiBi instructional and support staff; general characteristics of the curriculum and the specific reading and bicultural components of the curriculum; and characteristics of research being conducted to establish the efficacy of BiBi methods. Ninety-one percent (n = 71) of the 78 day and residential schools listed in the 1998 Directory of the American Annals of the Deaf participated in the survey, with 19 schools identifying themselves as BiBi.

 

[rockdrummer]

Please see the post above. I suggest you retract your statement that there is no research to support the hypothesis. I have clearly shown that there is.

You have provided titles to studies. That doesn't prove those studies suggests that bibi programs are the best for the majority of deaf kids. At least you have finally provided what you have been asked for over and over. Thank you. Now I at least stand a fair chance of locating the studies and have the opportunity to read them. Providing the title of an article or study in and of itself doesn't substantiate a claim.

 

[jillio]

Can you at least tell me how many bi-bi programs are out there? Let's not forget that bi bi is a newly program and it's not well known yet based on research.

The number is increasing daily with the development of various charter schools using Bi-Bi philosophy as their foundation. Likewise, many of the deaf schools have converted from a TC to a Bi-Bi philosophy. The exact number of programs, no, I can't provide you with information. That would have to be done by doing a state by state search. Those reports are issued by the government on a yearly basis, as new liscense becomes effective. The numbers for 2007 and 2008 have not been made available yet, as compiling the numbers is a very time consuming and lengthy process.

There are, however, obviously enough programs in existence to conduct the research on educational results of such.

 

[jillio]

You have provided titles to studies. That doesn't prove those studies suggests that bibi programs are the best for the majority of deaf kids. At least you have finally provided what you have been asked for over and over. Thank you. Now I at least stand a fair chance of locating the studies and have the opportunity to read them. Providing the title of an article or study in and of itself doesn't substantiate a claim.

I have provided more than titles. I have provided all the information you need to access the articles, down to and including the page numbers on which they can be found in the respective publications. If you will take the time and make the effort to utilize the information you have been given, you will be able to read the articles and then you will know exactly what they say, rather than assuming something about which you have not even looked at, much less read. You requested that I point you in the direction of one article. I pointed you in the direction of 3 specific articles, as well as the ability to locate 100s more.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you do not want the articles, you simply want to argue that they don't exist. If you are truly interested in learning and informing yourself, you have been provided with more than sufficient information to permit you to do so. If you don't want to learn, but simply want to continue to argue out of stubborness, instead of from a knowledgeable pespective, simply say so. I won't waste my time trying to help you find that which you claim to want, but refuse to take.

You have to actually read it, RD, before you know what it substantiates. I suggest you do that.

 

[Cloggy]

Please see the post above. I suggest you retract your statement that there is no research to support the hypothesis. I have clearly shown that there is.

WOW... "I suggest you retract your statement"... where are we... Capitol Hill???

Would it be OK if Cheri would say "thanks for the info."

I have provided more than titles. I have provided all the information you need to access the articles, down to and including the page numbers on which they can be found in the respective publications. If you will take the time and make the effort to utilize the information you have been given, you will be able to read the articles and then you will know exactly what they say, rather than assuming something about which you have not even looked at, much less read. You requested that I point you in the direction of one article. I pointed you in the direction of 3 specific articles, as well as the ability to locate 100s more.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you do not want the articles, you simply want to argue that they don't exist. If you are truly interested in learning and informing yourself, you have been provided with more than sufficient information to permit you to do so. If you don't want to learn, but simply want to continue to argue out of stubborness, instead of from a knowledgeable pespective, simply say so. I won't waste my time trying to help you find that which you claim to want, but refuse to take.

You have to actually read it, RD, before you know what it substantiates. I suggest you do that.

Please......
Not everyone has a university-library on the computer.
You can access any article in minutes with that system. The rest of the world will have to make time to go there, find it, copy it etc.
You don't even have to pay for any article you access..

So, for you it's all very easy to say "find it yourself, buy it yourself", since you get it for free and instantly on your computer..
Pretty sad you attack people on their ability to access information...

btw... thanks for the titles.. (and again... page-numbers etc. names of journals is something you don't spend time on finding them. Copy-Paste...... So don't brag how much you provided...)

 

[jillio]

WOW... "I suggest you retract your statement"... where are we... Capitol Hill???

Would it be OK if Cheri would say "thanks for the info."

No, because it was specifically stated that there were no articles and no data available to support the hypothesis. That was a false statement. "Thanks for the info" does not correct the false statement that was made.

But I would suggest that you avail yourself of the articles, as well, if you wish to continiue discussing the topic of Bi-Bi education. Actually reading the articles will prevent false statements being made in the future.

 

[rockdrummer]

I have provided more than titles. I have provided all the information you need to access the articles, down to and including the page numbers on which they can be found in the respective publications. If you will take the time and make the effort to utilize the information you have been given, you will be able to read the articles and then you will know exactly what they say, rather than assuming something about which you have not even looked at, much less read. You requested that I point you in the direction of one article. I pointed you in the direction of 3 specific articles, as well as the ability to locate 100s more.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you do not want the articles, you simply want to argue that they don't exist. If you are truly interested in learning and informing yourself, you have been provided with more than sufficient information to permit you to do so. If you don't want to learn, but simply want to continue to argue out of stubborness, instead of from a knowledgeable pespective, simply say so. I won't waste my time trying to help you find that which you claim to want, but refuse to take.

You have to actually read it, RD, before you know what it substantiates. I suggest you do that.

Wake up call... How many times have I asked you for this information that you have FINALLY provided (and yes the authors and page numbers are there obviously). And this is only one case so please don't go spouting off in other threads how you have provided me all the information that I seek. You have not. And to be clear I am not asking you to do research for me but only asking you to back up the claims you continue to make that are allegedly supported by research. All that I have ever asked you to do is provide information about the research to support the claims otherwise state them as your opinion.

This is one isolated case so keep it in context. As I said, now I at least stand a fair chance of locating this information. What is becomming increasingly obvious is that you don't have the best intentions of helping others learn. Only when you have been pressed over and over do you finally provide information on the studies and articles. And again, providing the titles (and authors and page numbers) doesnt support a position. It's what is contained in the pages that will support it. That I have yet to read. But again... Thank you for finally providing the information as a starting point. I hope it wasn't to much effort for you.

 

[Tousi]

That's not fair, RD; she is supplying the vast majority of the information and risks spreading herself so thin, she can't get anything done except for the lattes some of us "rescue" her with. Lol...

 

[jillio]

Wake up call... How many times have I asked you for this information that you have FINALLY provided (and yes the authors and page numbers are there obviously). And this is only one case so please don't go spouting off in other threads how you have provided me all the information that I seek. You have not. This is one isolated case so keep it in context. As I said, now I at least stand a fair chance of locating this information. What is becomming increasingly obvious is that you don't have the best intentions of helping others learn. Only when you have been pressed over and over do you finally provide information on the studies and articles. And again, providing the titles (and authors and page numbers) doesnt support a position. It's what is contained in the pages that will support it. That I have yet to read. But again... Thank you for finally providing the information as a starting point. I hope it wasn't to much effort for you.

I have the best intentions when it comes to helping others learn. I simply have no patience for those who claim to want to learn but refuse to make the effort to do so.

And, yes, it did require a bit of effort on my part, but I will not be sending you the bill this time.

 

[Cloggy]

That's not fair, RD; she is supplying the vast majority of the information and risks spreading herself so thin, she can't get anything done except for the lattes some of us "rescue" her with. Lol...

It was totally correct. Completely to the point.

 

[Cloggy]

I have the best intentions when it comes to helping others learn. I simply have no patience for those who claim to want to learn but refuse to make the effort to do so.

And, yes, it did require a bit of effort on my part, but I will not be sending you the bill this time.

A search on "bi-bi education deaf " on a University system, right under your nose, Copy-Paste..... done!
How much time does that take.. ??? 2 minutes flat.? You would not be able to bill him the $0.01. It would not be worth it..

btw.. can you tell me what search-criteria / keywords you used. My wife can do the same search and check how long it took... (yes, also on a University computer..)

But thanks for the effort... Now, I'm off reading your articles.. Thanks again..

 

[jillio]

That's not fair, RD; she is supplying the vast majority of the information and risks spreading herself so thin, she can't get anything done except for the lattes some of us "rescue" her with. Lol...

And God knows, I appreciate those lattes, Tousi! Since I am expected to do everyone's work for them, I couldn't survive without them.

 

[rockdrummer]

That's not fair, RD; she is supplying the vast majority of the information and risks spreading herself so thin, she can't get anything done except for the lattes some of us "rescue" her with. Lol...

If you believe what she is attempting to twist the subject into then you might believe it's not fair. It's not acceptable when Jill or anyone for that matter comes into a thread and says "research shows da da da da da" without siting the specific research. That is it in a nutshell. If I came in here and said that research shows the bibi programs are ineffective, wouldn't you want me to back up that claim with at least the title of the research? I wouldn't think that would be an unreasonable request.

If you follow her language then I am this guy sitting on a couch waiting for her to hand feed me information when that is nothing near the truth. It's a tactic to mislead and present an incorrect impression. What has been requested of her is completly reasonable. If you make a claim to research then back it up. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Daredevel7]

That's not fair, RD; she is supplying the vast majority of the information and risks spreading herself so thin, she can't get anything done except for the lattes some of us "rescue" her with. Lol...

Yea RD, you can't really expect someone to be always on hand with research and citing examples. I mean, think about it... even if she gives you sources of research, it most likely will back her up. So I think if you disagree with her, it's at least more efficient for EVERYONE, including yourself, to do your own research, right? Especially in your case, if she gives you articles that show evidence of bibi being the best (which I assumed that you're concerned about), what's more efficient as a response: "I disagree with that article" vs "I found THIS article that shows that bibi may not be as good as it seems". Why would they give you THAT article?

 

[jillio]

A search on "bi-bi education deaf " on a University system, right under your nose, Copy-Paste..... done!
How much time does that take.. ??? 2 minutes flat.? You would not be able to bill him the $0.01. It would not be worth it..

btw.. can you tell me what search-criteria / keywords you used. My wife can do the same search and check how long it took... (yes, also on a University computer..)

But thanks for the effort... Now, I'm off reading your articles.. Thanks again..

Those citations did not come from a university data base. They came directly from full text articles that I have in my own personal research base. There was no copy and paste to it. I found the aticles, (among 100's I might add), and formulated the citations based on the information provided in my personal copy of the research.

I happen to be working off of my personal computer at the moment. And if your wife can do the search, I'm sure she is versed in knowing what search criteria to use. Perhaps she can teach you.:roll:

 

[jillio]

If you believe what she is attempting to twist the subject into then you might believe it's not fair. It's not acceptable when Jill or anyone for that matter comes into a thread and says "research shows da da da da da" without siting the specific research. That is it in a nutshell. If I came in here and said that research shows the bibi programs are ineffective, wouldn't you want me to back up that claim with at least the title of the research? I wouldn't think that would be an unreasonable request.

If you follow her language then I am this guy sitting on a couch waiting for her to hand feed me information when that is nothing near the truth. It's a tactic to mislead and present an incorrect impression. What has been requested of her is completly reasonable. If you make a claim to research then back it up. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have already been informed by a moderator that unless I cite specifically from a specific research paper, I am in no way obligated to provide you with a citation. If I have done so, I have done so out of generosity. But it is quite obvious that you have no appreciation for the effort.

 

[rockdrummer]

Yea RD, you can't really expect someone to be always on hand with research and citing examples. I mean, think about it... even if she gives you sources of research, it most likely will back her up. So I think if you disagree with her, it's at least more efficient for EVERYONE, including yourself, to do your own research, right? Especially in your case, if she gives you articles that show evidence of bibi being the best (which I assumed that you're concerned about), what's more efficient as a response: "I disagree with that article" vs "I found THIS article that shows that bibi may not be as good as it seems". Why would they give you THAT article?

Please read the post above this one. Also what about the ability of someone to make counterpoints to the research. Or what about if she is mistaken and was thinking about some other paper. Without providing at least the title how can anyone ever counterpoint what is claimed. Maybe she is mistaken but nobody would ever know because she hasn't backed up the claims of research with the titles or anything else. Are we to just believe everything that is claimed just because someone says research shows it and then not hold them accountable to provide the minimal information required for anyone to find such research. That would indeed be dangerous. Regardless of what Jill want's you to believe about my efforts, I have read several research papers and articles on bibi programs which is on of the reasons she is being pressed in this thread.

 

[jillio]

Yea RD, you can't really expect someone to be always on hand with research and citing examples. I mean, think about it... even if she gives you sources of research, it most likely will back her up. So I think if you disagree with her, it's at least more efficient for EVERYONE, including yourself, to do your own research, right? Especially in your case, if she gives you articles that show evidence of bibi being the best (which I assumed that you're concerned about), what's more efficient as a response: "I disagree with that article" vs "I found THIS article that shows that bibi may not be as good as it seems". Why would they give you THAT article?

Thank you, Daredevel.