Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I am reading through the research papers I have located and also the ones I have been graciously given the titles etc, to (Thank you Jillio) I have come across yet more information that supports the theory that one size does not fit all. I have also found some interesting information on a bibi model of literacy education for deaf students. I am still reading and absorbing additional articles but wanted to post some of what supports the things that I believe to be true.

“There are options—plural. There is no one option in the educational world of a deaf child. Don’t let anyone try to sell you on any one option while disregarding the others. All kids are different and have different needs. No one option can meet the needs of all deaf children. “

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System
Click to expand...
There is further discussion on that topic here
http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/48346-deaf-education-one-size-does-not-fit-all.html

For the record I am not against the bibi approach or any approach that proves beneficial. In a perfect world a single approach would work for everybody but from what I have seen so far, there is no single approach that can claim to be the best for the majority.

This is an interesting 1999 study that examines the claims to a bibi approach of literacy education.

Here is an excerpt from the abstract

If proponents of bilingual education for deaf children truly rely on 'research on the benefits of native sign language and from theoretical and research support coming from other disciplines' (Ewoldt, 1996, p. 5) to support their claims, then these research and theoretical supports must be examined as comprehensively, and holistically, as possible. Weaving together only a few threads of theory and research does not create the fabric for a pedagogical position that can withstand close scrutiny and analysis.

Source:Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims -- Mayer and Akamatsu 4 (1): 1 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Click to expand...

Here is an excerpt from the conclusion

“This critical examination of some of the most frequent claims made by supporters of bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students questions the viability of these claims as sufficient foundation and basis for justifying the pedagogical argument. In raising this question our goal is not to argue that these claims are “right” or “wrong.” This would contribute little to an already prolonged debate and would pander to the fallacious notion that there is one “best” and only way to educate deaf children. Nor should this criticism be seen as the basis for making a general argument against bilingual education for deaf students. This is a point we made at the outset. However, if this approach to educating deaf children is to be seen as appropriate for the larger numbers of students, its tenets and theoretical foundations must be able to withstand close examination, and its proponents cannot conveniently ignore the current theory, knowledge, and research data that do not fit the model.”
Click to expand...

You can find the full text here
Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims -- Mayer and Akamatsu 4 (1): 1 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To add to Shel's post on TC:

Some of the major concerns are the possible effects of teachers who do not completely code a language (i.e. English or ASL) during their signed instructions; the ability of teachers to sign and speak simultaneously, the absence of ASL from total communication programs; and the number of teachers who actually use an English sign system or ASL during their classroom interactions. Underlying each of these concerns is the proposition that the level of the teachers' signing may be a critical factor in determining the academic success of their students. Indeed, the lack of linguistic consistency in total communication classrooms combined with any lack of accountability for the signing behaviors of teachers may be one of the most important factors accounting for the low English proficiency level of deaf students.

Stewart, D. (1992). Initiating reform in total communication programs. The Journal of Special Education. 26 (1). pp. 68-84.
 
A New Paradigm

Predisposition Toward English Over ASL
Despite the fact that research has consistently shown that deaf students
with a strong foundation in ASL (from Deaf parents) tend to academically
outperform those who do not possess ASL as their primary language (Padden,1980; Prinz & Strong, 1998), most teacher education programs and
current educational policies are predisposed against the use of ASL, and
as a result, natural sign languages have had little formal role in the education
of deaf children (Supalla, 1992), These traditions of English-focused
instruction have not benefited the majority of deaf students but continue to receive strong support from the majority of those wht) design deaf education curriculum.

Simms, L. & Thumann, H. (2007). In search of a new, linguistically and culturally sensitive paradigm in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(3). pp. 302-311.
 
Historically, research has shown
that hearing loss itself should not be
used to rationalize the low level of deaf
children's academic performance.
Deaf children are in every respect as
capable of achieving academic excellence
as their hearing counterparts.
The members of the Deaf community
believe that even though there are a
multitude of variables that contribute
to the achievement and success of
deaf children, language is the common
thread that brings these variables
together. Cummins (1986) expressed
the belief that students who were empowered
by their school experiences
developed the ability, confidence, and
motivation to succeed academically
This empowerment of deaf children
cKcurs when the teachers and the students
share a commcjn language; when
communication is effective, expedient,
and clear; and when a sense of belonging
and group identity Ls instilled. Natural
communication through ASL
provides deaf children the opportunity
to interact freely with knowledge
about subject matter as well as with
teachers and peers. It is such an environment
that allows for maximum academic,
social, and emotional growth.

Simms, L. & Thumann, H. (2007). In search of a new, linguistically and culturally sensitive paradigm in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(3). pp. 302-311.
 
rockdrummer said:
Don’t let anyone try to sell you on any one option while disregarding the others. All kids are different and have different needs. No one option can meet the needs of all deaf children. “
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Don’t let anyone try to sell you on any one option while disregarding the others. All kids are different and have different needs. No one option can meet the needs of all deaf children. “
Click to expand...

Yeppers... they tried to "sell" my mom the idea that I should go to a deaf school because I "had very little hope of speaking"

Same way they try to sell the idea that if a deaf child can speak fine without ASL/CS/SEE, so can yours.
 
Despite the problem of justifying
which (if any) of the two languages is the L1, one should bear in mind that
Deaf people are naturally predisposed to visual communication, as this mode
is compatible with the way they perceive the world (Mahshie, 1997). Sign
language, because of its visual modality, offers access to a natural fully-fledged
language to Deaf people. Therefore, sign language holds a special position in
the education of Deaf school students (Paul, 2001).

Koutsoubou, M., Herman, R. & Woll, Bernice (2007). Does language input matter in bilingual writing? Translation versus direct composition in deaf students written stories. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 10(2). pp. 126-151.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Yeppers... they tried to "sell" my mom the idea that I should go to a deaf school because I "had very little hope of speaking"

Same way they try to sell the idea that if a deaf child can speak fine without ASL/CS/SEE, so can yours.
Click to expand...


Good point.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
The failures of TC and oral only are the reason why the BiBi approach is gaining in popularity.
Click to expand...

Exactly. TC was brought into this thread very early on, I believe beginning on page 2. It has been used in several posts in opposition to bi-bi, by several different posters. This thread has, from its inception, contained posts regarding TC. Therefore, it is very much a part of the discussion.

And for that matter, the failure of oral only was the main reason that TC ever became popularized. We are again seeing the same thing at a different level. The failure of TC has prompted the move toward bi-bi.

Come to think of it, CS, as well, has been mentioned in several posts in this thread as well. Is that what this thread is about?
 
Cloggy said:
You already explained? Missed that one.
Thanks for the clarification.
So, it depends on the University.
How about, for example, the University of Ohio...
A department connected to deaf studies would certainly have access.

My wife works at a University and when she needs an article, she does a simple search and it will come up, available to read. Same with journals and magazines. Anyone teaching at the university would be expected to be up to date with current research, so they will have to have it available..
Click to expand...

to be more accurate - it depends on University's budget and type of university. The academic database access is lucratively expensive - usually between several hundred thousand dollars to millions. If your wife's university does have the appropriate database for certain issue - good... if not, oh well. There are hundreds hundreds of different database for specific subject. So obviously business school would have more business database (I love Hoovers but very expensive) than academic database and probably a limited medical database.
 
Angel said:
Perhaps it's because others keep putting them down continually instead of helping or encouraging these people who had total communication or was raised orally then attend total communication until much later like my sister and I.

It's not their fault if they can't write properly, some habits are hard to break. It's like saying, why can't a person see well when others can see a certain object in the distance and critizing or making fun of that person just because that person can't see the object. As in life, there are shortcomings and not every one is perfect, but at least the majority will understand what is being said despite a sentence or more not written properly, clearly, the point is being understood. Let's stick with that rather than to keep putting down those who may not be able to write a proper sentence.

Everyone's..both hearing and the deaf have been shown not being able to write properly, but that's according to a standard like yourself adheres to and instead of being encouraging, you seem to constantly keep putting those people down just by the way they write. Such a crying shame. Everyone has their own style and ways, live with it. By doing so, just remember you cannot fully understand the entire way most of these deaf people were raised and how each one went through such total communication at some point in their lives.

Be careful of what you do say, your post may have offended some deaf people here, like myself.
Click to expand...

Literacy is..... probably the MOST important skill ever... on top of everything. Everything is in written form - books, contracts, transcripts, essays, news, etc. If one has a poor literary skill..... he is no better than a person with a great communication skill but a poor literary skill.

Mind you - you're on AD forum..... in textual form. We're all talking to each other.... in textual form. Get it? :cool2:
 
rockdrummer said:
As I am reading through the research papers I have located and also the ones I have been graciously given the titles etc, to (Thank you Jillio) I have come across yet more information that supports the theory that one size does not fit all. I have also found some interesting information on a bibi model of literacy education for deaf students. I am still reading and absorbing additional articles but wanted to post some of what supports the things that I believe to be true.


There is further discussion on that topic here
http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-education/48346-deaf-education-one-size-does-not-fit-all.html

For the record I am not against the bibi approach or any approach that proves beneficial. In a perfect world a single approach would work for everybody but from what I have seen so far, there is no single approach that can claim to be the best for the majority.

This is an interesting 1999 study that examines the claims to a bibi approach of literacy education.

Here is an excerpt from the abstract



Here is an excerpt from the conclusion



You can find the full text here
Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims -- Mayer and Akamatsu 4 (1): 1 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Click to expand...

Your belief.

It wasnt only the research that led me to my beliefs..my professional experience in different programs was what really changed my views after what I saw what went on in these programs. Like I said in one post, the US is resistant to change. There is a problem with Deaf ed and either we hang onto the old methods or change. As Obama stated..it is time for a change and many schools and teaching training programs across the nation are starting to drop the TC method in favor for BiBi. The Deaf Ed program at Gallaudet was a TC philosophy while I was a student there...just dropped the TC philosophy to adopt the BiBi philosophy. While I was a student there, we were taught that one size doesnt fit all but because I was exposed to different programs and always saw the students being able to participate fully to their potential in the BiBi programs, I disagreed with my own graduate program and chose to work in a BiBi program.

It is all your choice and your decision. I dont think of myself ..I think of what environment gives all deaf children equal access to language, communication, information, and etc etc. That's all there it is.

Go figure..after I graduated from Gallaudet, the program changed to adopt the BiBi philosophy. Heh!
 
Jiro said:
Literacy is..... probably the MOST important skill ever... on top of everything. Everything is in written form - books, contracts, transcripts, essays, news, etc. If one has a poor literary skill..... he is no better than a person with a great communication skill but a poor literary skill.

Mind you - you're on AD forum..... in textual form. We're all talking to each other.... in textual form. Get it? :cool2:
Click to expand...

Agreed...
 
Good posts, shel and jiro. The "one size fits all" concept has its place in any educational philosophy. That is why we have instituted the IEP. It puts in place the services that the individual needs beyond those of the basic philosophy. However, it was intended to address the needs of the minority indiviudual that cannot benefit from the system being used to teach the majority. We are distorting the purpose of the IEP. A deaf child in a Bi-Bi environment is much, much less likely to need additional services under an IEP because the environment of Bi-Bi provides for their needs educationally. However, when they are placed in the mainstream in an oral environment, the picture changes. The mainstream is a system that was designed to benefit the majority of hearing children, not the majority of deaf children. It creates the consequence of all but a very very few deaf children being served under an IEP that would be totally unneccesary in a bi-bi environment. Just look at the services that are provided under a deaf child's IEP, and it becomes very evident that the bi-bi classroom already provides these services as a function of the philosophy, and in an inclusive environment, rather than an exlusive one. The need to provide a terp....gone. The need for remedial language services....gone. The need for resource rooms that brings kids up to par with the curriculum because they have spent the day in an environment that restricts the information available to them....gone. The need to pull kids out of class....gone. Why? Becuase these needs are addressed by design of the bi-bi educational system. In a mainstream system, these needs are dealt with through an IEP because the child's needs are not being met by the basic design of the educatiional system. When we mainstream, we place kids in the restrictive environment that creates the need for additional services. It is so much simpler, and so much better for the child, to use a system that does not create deficits by its very nature.
 
I just want to clarify my post regarding literacy. I just reread my post #476 and I feel that it was a direct attack to Angel. I apologize for that and that was not my intention. I was referring "you" as general people and my post was to somewhat supplement Oceanbreeze's post even though it was crude....

but hey.... it's how life is.... if you were being mocked for your shortcoming and you still haven't overcome it several years later... well.... what can I say? In a crude sense - only the strong survives.
 
Jiro said:
I just want to clarify my post regarding literacy. I just reread my post #476 and I feel that it was a direct attack to Angel. I apologize for that and that was not my intention. I was referring "you" as general people and my post was to somewhat supplement Oceanbreeze's post even though it was crude....

but hey.... it's how life is.... if you were being mocked for your shortcoming and you still haven't overcome it several years later... well.... what can I say? In a crude sense - only the strong survives.
Click to expand...

And, if individuals are being criticised for the shorcomings created by the system of education, it is time to change the system so that children of the future do not suffer inadequate education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top