Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[jillio]

Could you explain what you mean by top down/bottom up approach?

Whoa! That would take awhile to give you a complete explanation, but I'll do my best as it applies to this discussion. It is basically the way the brain processes stimuli and input. The concept comes from cognitive psychology.

In the case of literacy, it would be applicable to the differences say, in using a top down way of word recognition (in which the whole word is seen as a shape, not as individual letters or phonetic units) or seeing the word broken down in phonetic units. Research on the topic shows that people recognize familiar words as a complete shape, and not as individual letters or phonetic units. There have many tests designed to test this concept, and it has held true across many different scenarios. Bottom up processing would enter into the equation in the case of an unfamiliar word that could be sounded out phonetically. We may use bottom up when we see a new word in print and are trying to figure out how to pronounce it. Once we are familiar with the word, the next time we see it in print, it is processed from a top down perspective. The issue is important in teaching reading strategies, and that is the the reference was used in this particular article.

 

[Jiro]

oh.... that was.... more complicated than I thought.

 

[jillio]

oh.... that was.... more complicated than I thought.

That's what shel and I have been trying to explain. Some of this stuff requires advanced knowledge to understand the implications. That is not to say that people shouldn't have input and make every attempt to understand the concepts, but that it is a complicated topic, and unless you have had the opportunity to learn this stuff, there are issues that you wouldn't even consider.

That is also why I bring these things up in the discussions. It is not to insult anyone's intelligence or educational level. It is in an effort to get people to consider the whole picture.

 

[jillio]

Thanks but I am still confused... Jillio said top down/bottoms up approach in BiBi philosophy, in the bolded statement above, that sounds like oral only to me. Or is it that they are taught oral first THEN ASL?

Neither one.

 

[rockdrummer]

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!

Yes my belief. My belief is not one that comes lightly. My belief is based on many undisputable facts. My belief is based on what I and the professionals that work directly with my deaf child feel are in the best interest of educating my deaf child under his unique set of circumstances. My belief is based on much information that I have had to gather and many topics that I have had to learn about. And from that the only consensus that I have seen from the majority in the professional and educational communities is that one size does not fit all. There are a few that disagree with that theory but they are currently the minority. Perhaps that will change. Only time will tell. But until it does mind you, I will not be making any knee jerk decisions to enroll my child in a program that has yet to prove itself and that is accepted as beneficial for the majority by the majority in the professional community.

I am not disputing your professional experience and I never would. All I am saying is that from my standpoint, claims of bibi being beneficial for the majority has yet to be proven and accepted by the educators and those professionals that evaluate educational approaches.

Your professional experiences are valid in my view and I hope that you are contributing those experiences to current studies that support a bibi model

I don’t know that I agree that the US is resistant to change but more that further investigation needs to be conducted before this method is more widely accepted. The excerpt below speaks to that.

“The challenge for all of us is to consider the “hard” questions and to grapple with making sense of the problematic aspects of a bilingual model of deaf education. Some of these concerns which are shared by others in the field (Paul & Quigley, 1987; Schirmer, 1994; Stewart, 1993) have been raised in the discussion presented here: What is the nature of linguistic interdependence when the first language is a signed language and the second is the written form of a spoken language? Is it reasonable to expect that deaf students can learn English solely through access to its print form? What rolls can natural and artificial sign systems play in building bridges from native sign language to literacy? Which models of teaching and learning would be most effective for deaf learners of English? Why would it be “best practice” to limit our pedagogy to a single approach?”
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

I am glad there are people like you out there. Without you it would be status quos. I believe that most (if not all) educators are doing their jobs and supporting their approaches because they have the best interest of the child at heart. I also believe the reasons there are so many approaches is exactly because one size does not fit all. This is re-enforced further by first hand experiences shared by people on this forum, people that I now IRL and further supported in my personal research.

This is not about me. It’s about wading through all of issues and concerns of educating my deaf child. It’s about making sense of the many choices that are out there and along with the specialists and educators, choosing one that fits the individual needs of my individual deaf child. The only agenda I have is to do my best to ensure my child is able to live a happy, healthy independent productive life and thrive in society.

 

[jillio]

That is what I was trying to say. It's the educational techniques that are failing children. In this society, if you can't read and write correctly, you can't get along. It's doesn't make a whit's difference if you're hearing or deaf. It's true for both the hearing and the deaf!

Exactly. Don't blame the kids, blame the system that failed them, and then convinced them that they had actually learned what they need to know. We are not only undereducating children, we are teaching them that it is okay.

 

[jillio]

Hi, I wanted to clarify this and to ask a question.

If one were to choose that exact reason in order to be exposed to the fluent language, then, How is it possible when it is not processed the same as getting a WHOLE exposure rather than a HALF of the exposure?

Just wondering.

Excellent question, Jolie. You are seeing the bigger picture.

 

[rockdrummer]

Hi, I wanted to clarify this and to ask a question.

If one were to choose that exact reason in order to be exposed to the fluent language, then, How is it possible when it is not processed the same as getting a WHOLE exposure rather than a HALF of the exposure?

Just wondering.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by whole and half exposure. My statement is based on a child with a CI that gains the benefit of processing spoken language early in their life when children are normally aquiring language.

 

[jillio]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by whole and half exposure. My statement is based on a child with a CI that gains the benefit of processing spoken language early in their life when children are normally aquiring language.

Do you know of any child with a CI that is able to process all of the sounds of language as a hearing child would? As with hearing aids, some sounds remain unavailable. The child has to fill in the missing parts. If they don't have a stong foundation in a language to begin with, what they fill in will be left to chance. Likewise with the unavailability of reception across all situations. While this might be great in a social situation without backgorund distraction, it is hardly sufficient in an educational environment. Please refer back to the case of the CI children that needed CART. Why is it that you think they needed CART when the hearing children didn't?

 

[rockdrummer]

but it's the WRONG tool!!!!! WRONG approach!!!! That studies are basically saying... ASL first as L1 and it will open up a gateway to ANYTHING... including spoken language. You're misunderstanding their studies. It does not support your claim.

For some it may be wrong but for others that have enjoyed success you may have a hard time convincing them they used the wrong tool and wrong approach.

 

[Jolie77]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by whole and half exposure. My statement is based on a child with a CI that gains the benefit of processing spoken language early in their life when children are normally aquiring language.

What I mean is; For one to be exposed in a fluent language, They are to be in order to acquire the WHOLE thing rather than getting the half of it.

For instance; A child with CI may be able to acquire the spoken language but they also need the assistance in order to get the full exposure. They may be able to benefit the spoken language but they also need the tool in order to be equivalent.

A child who has been exposed to ASL (or any kind of sign language in this form) from the day they're born, they are able to get the full exposure by getting into the core of the communication structure.

I think, If one wants to be fluent in a language of any given kind, They also need to get the full exposure, not the half of the exposure. That's the problem for many because when they are basing it on half of the exposure, they are only able to acquire SOME of it but not to the full length.

 

[jillio]

For some it may be wrong but for others that have enjoyed success you may have a hard time convincing them they used the wrong tool and wrong approach.

The point is not to convince them. The point is to convince the educational community that is responsible for the education of deaf children. Again, we have to look at the majority, not one or two case studies.

 

[jillio]

What I mean is; For one to be exposed in a fluent language, They are to be in order to acquire the WHOLE thing rather than getting the half of it.

For instance; A child with CI may be able to acquire the spoken language but they also need the assistance in order to get the full exposure. They may be able to benefit the spoken language but they also need the tool in order to be equivalent.

A child who has been exposed to ASL (or any kind of sign language in this form) from the day they're born, they are able to get the full exposure by getting into the core of the communication structure.

I think, If one wants to be fluent in a language of any given kind, They also need to get the full exposure, not the half of the exposure. That's the problem for many because when they are basing it on half of the exposure, they are only able to acquire SOME of it but not to the full length.

 

[Daredevel7]

Whoa! That would take awhile to give you a complete explanation, but I'll do my best as it applies to this discussion. It is basically the way the brain processes stimuli and input. The concept comes from cognitive psychology.

In the case of literacy, it would be applicable to the differences say, in using a top down way of word recognition (in which the whole word is seen as a shape, not as individual letters or phonetic units) or seeing the word broken down in phonetic units. Research on the topic shows that people recognize familiar words as a complete shape, and not as individual letters or phonetic units. There have many tests designed to test this concept, and it has held true across many different scenarios. Bottom up processing would enter into the equation in the case of an unfamiliar word that could be sounded out phonetically. We may use bottom up when we see a new word in print and are trying to figure out how to pronounce it. Once we are familiar with the word, the next time we see it in print, it is processed from a top down perspective. The issue is important in teaching reading strategies, and that is the the reference was used in this particular article.

Thanks Jillio! I have a better picture now. So from a deaf child perspective, ASL would support the top down approach since ASL uses signs to convey a symbol/shape, while cued speech and oral/lipreading would be a part of the bottom up approach?

 

[jillio]

Thanks Jillio! I have a better picture now. So from a deaf child perspective, ASL would support the top down approach since ASL uses signs to convey a symbol/shape, while cued speech and oral/lipreading would be a part of the bottom up approach?

YW. Glad I could help. And yes, that is a very good condensed understanding of the concept.

 

[loml]

..... to be exposed to the fluent language, then, How is it possible when it is not processed the same as getting a WHOLE exposure rather than a HALF of the exposure?Just wondering.

Jolie77- Cueing of the English language (for example), can/does support the visual and auditory learning process of a child/adult with a CI.

Basically, "filling in the gaps" of the sound(s). (hoping that I am understanding your description of whole/half exposure)

 

[Jiro]

For some it may be wrong but for others that have enjoyed success you may have a hard time convincing them they used the wrong tool and wrong approach.

true and indeed... One-size-does-not-fit-all. HOWEVER...... nobody seems to be able to answer my question and it's still unanswered for couple weeks. So I ask again - for GENERAL deaf population - more specifically... younger deaf children starting out their schools... can you say with a higher degree of certainty that oralism/spoken language as FIRST language will bring better success than ASL first?

hhhmmmmm?

 

[loml]

This is from:Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 3:4 1998

An Alternate Route for Preparing Deaf Children for BiBi Programs: The Home Language as LI and Cued Speech for Conveying Traditionally-Spoken Languages

Carol J. LaSasso and Melanie A. Metzger
Gallaudet University

This article focuses on nonsigning hearing parents of deaf children who share the goals of bilingual-bicultural (BiBi) programs for their child, opt for their home language to be their deaf child's first language (Ll), and have questions about communication options (e.g., oral methods, manually coded English [MCE] systems, or Cued Speech) for conveying that language. We present research findings related to the effectiveness of MCE systems and Cued Speech for conveying English and developing deaf children's reading abilities. We compare the cueing of English and the signing of MCE systems in terms of theoretical and practical advantages. Finally, we suggest research needs.

An Alternate Route for Preparing Deaf Children for BiBi Programs: The Home Language as LI and Cued Speech for Conveying Traditionally-Spoken Languages -- LaSasso and Metzger 3 (4): 265 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education A free PDF is available.

 

[jillio]

I would suggest reading the whole article. It gives a much wider perspective than does the abstract, and in fact, states that the MCEs have been woefully inadequate in raising literacy skills for deaf children over the last 25-30 years.

 

[jillio]

true and indeed... One-size-does-not-fit-all. HOWEVER...... nobody seems to be able to answer my question and it's still unanswered for couple weeks. So I ask again - for GENERAL deaf population - more specifically... younger deaf children starting out their schools... can you say with a higher degree of certainty that oralism/spoken language as FIRST language will bring better success than ASL first?

hhhmmmmm?

No that cannot be said, and in fact, it is the deaf children with ASL as their L1 language that consistently outperform their peers. That is from a general population perspective.