Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[rockdrummer]

But the CI has not been shown to provide a child with language input from the moment of birth, not does it provide 100% access to language.

Children are not implated at the moment of birth and deaf children born to non signing adults won't be provided 100% access either until the parents become proficient which can take years.

The change needs to be made to insure that children receive access to proper linguistic models beginning with early intervention. The way to correct the problems is not with mechanics, it is with the use of linguistic systems themselves.

Isn't spoken English considered a linguistic system?

We must also keep in mind that the CI is not available to all deaf children. What would you suggest we do with those?

Exactly. One size doesn't fit all. The apporach for a child that is not a candidate, or those that don't opt for a CI or those that don't gain benefit from a CI should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

[Jiro]

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.

I knew you'd say that. That question was for those people who adamantly think Oral/Spoken Language should be taught first and I have YET received any answer from those people..... I'm still waiting!!!

 

[rockdrummer]

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

This citation is incomplete. Please provide a publication date so the article can be located. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education publishes several times a year, so providing volume and issue is insufficient. They could apply to any year.

Sorry, Here is a link to the full text. You don't have to locate anything. Just click the link below and it will take you to a page where you can download the full text PDF. Follow the on-screen instructions and click the specified link if the download doesn't automatically occur. Let me know if you need further assistance.
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

 

[flip]

Given the fact that you live in a non-English speaking country, you grammar is remarkably accurrate. I would say the fact that you have had the advantage of being multi-lingual accounts for that. The largest amount of error is seen in those that are monolingual, and have not been provided a proper model for that single language, or have been unable to learn that singular language in the same way their peers would because the mode restricts the availability.

But I will correct the few errors I saw the same way I would correct for a student who brought this sample to me.

I noticed you corrected some grammar errors a couple of posts above this one. I live in a non-speaking english country, so English is a third or fourth language for me. It's been a while ago that my English was evaluated, so I'm curious. What kind of grammar errors do I have in my English? I would be happy to know, as I can't detect this myself, and would be great to know what level my English is? Pre-school, highschool, or perhaps kindergarten?:

I would place you at a post high school level. The few errors detected could be easily corrected with a couple of simple strategies. The most important thing is that you have excellent comprehension of written English. That would allow you to understand the grammar problems and easily correct them on your own with practice.

Thanks a lot! It's years ago someone commented my english, so really interesting to see what errors I did, and if my english have degraded a lot or not(fortunately, not much worse.

I don't know how it's to be monolingual, but sounds very risky beeing limited to one language, and can sense what you are saying.

What I truly enjoy, is beeing bimodal bilingual. It's like knowing two vast different worlds, that both have strict grammatical rules, but in completely different places. It's a gift to deaf people, and it makes me sad that some people don't give a shit about that and instead ask the doctor to pull the drill, claiming that one size don't fit all..

 

[rockdrummer]

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?

I never suggested that a child with a CI would be able to process all fo the sounds that a hearing child would.. We know that a CI doesn't mimic natural hearing and I never suggested that it does.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

I agree with that. And hopefully you and other supporters are doing just that. I truly wish you the best and anxiously await the research findings that come from your efforts.

 

[Jolie77]

All right, All right, You guys -

Let's please keep this clean. We've seen a lot of personal opinions clashing against each other. I can understand this is a heated topic but really, if you guys can at least keep it civilized without trading out these insulting remarks or taking it too far, please don't post if you are only out here to plot a personal vendetta on anyone else.

Thanks

Now, Let's get back with the program.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

Thank you. And I agree. My point is that non signing hearing parents of deaf kids are going to cause a delay to that 100% exposure while they are learning ASL. Also some parents are not willing to do that or for some it make take significantly longer than others.

 

[flip]

Thank you. And I agree. My point is that non signing hearing parents of deaf kids are going to cause a delay to that 100% exposure while they are learning ASL. Also some parents are not willing to do that or for some it make take significantly longer than others.

You have plenty of time to learn ASL. We are talking about babies, man.. You are not gonna dicuss deaf power or classifiers with the child. Are you saying that when parents don't want to learn ASL, children should be sacrificed to oralism or a different "one size don't fit all" system that does not require some ASL knowledge? Sounds extremely selfish to me.

 

[Jiro]

 

[jillio]

Children are not implated at the moment of birth and deaf children born to non signing adults won't be provided 100% access either until the parents become proficient which can take years.
That's the whole point, RD. And deaf children with less than fluent parents can be provided with fluent models with other means when we are discussing ASL. They have the capability. They do not have the capability for the same when we speak of spoken language.
Isn't spoken English considered a linguistic system?

Yes, spoken English is a linguistic system. The one that is responsible in the largest part for the undereducation and language deprivation in deaf children.

Exactly. One size doesn't fit all. The apporach for a child that is not a candidate, or those that don't opt for a CI or those that don't gain benefit from a CI should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

One size doesn't fit all, but when it comes to education, one size has been shown to fit the majority. IEPs can account for additional services when it comes to those who need extra services. If a child can succeed in an oral only environment, that is still an option. But it is being forced on the majority as the educational environment being reccommended for all. As a consequence, the majority still faces the negative impact of such. We are talking about policy that is set for the majority. A mainstream envronment was designed to address the needs of the majority of hearing children. Not the majority of deaf children. And it is not even doing a very good job of educating the majority for which it was designed. What makes you think it will address the needs of the majority that wasn't even considered in its design?

And, really, you need to come up with a new line. That "one size doesn't fit all" isnot only getting tiresome, but is invalid because no one here is talking about all. We are talking about a majority.

 

[rockdrummer]

You have been provided with research that shows that parents do not need to be fluent in ASL to get up to par language skills in their deaf children. A minimum of ASL skills is enough. Already forgot that research?

Sorry but there is much to absorb. Can you refresh my memory and point me back to said research so I am give it another look.

You fail to recognize that the citation you try to score points with, does not mention that exposure to fluent ASL skills needs to be within the family. And the last sentence needs to be edited to "Limited exposure to fluent language." for obvious reasons.

I am not sure exactly which citation you are talking about. I have provided many. Can you please be more specific? As far as exposure to language I simply said exposure. I didn't say full or limited nor should they have been implied.

 

[jillio]

 

[Jolie77]

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)

Hi, Well in order to get a full exposure - they would also need to be directed to it on a daily basis rather than having a visual and auditory therapy for few hours of the week. This is what I meant by having full exposure hence the 24/7 thing rather than limiting the idea of how to obtain that.

Hope that clears it up.

Thank you. And I agree. My point is that non signing hearing parents of deaf kids are going to cause a delay to that 100% exposure while they are learning ASL. Also some parents are not willing to do that or for some it make take significantly longer than others.

You're welcome. I do wholeheartedly agree that it is unfortunate to see a critical yet a significant delay that occurs.

I'm not here to start anything but I also want to understand what you meant by that. Are you saying that in order for the child to get a CI, they would be able to get the exposure from the parents that does not know sign language and to be able to "speak" yet, still the child is missing out a lot of details?

Maybe that is confusing on it's own term.

 

[jillio]

I knew you'd say that. That question was for those people who adamantly think Oral/Spoken Language should be taught first and I have YET received any answer from those people..... I'm still waiting!!!

Oops! I thought you meant in general. **Backing away now.** But I'd like to see an answer from the others, too.

 

[jillio]

Thanks a lot! It's years ago someone commented my english, so really interesting to see what errors I did, and if my english have degraded a lot or not(fortunately, not much worse.

I don't know how it's to be monolingual, but sounds very risky beeing limited to one language, and can sense what you are saying.

What I truly enjoy, is beeing bimodal bilingual. It's like knowing two vast different worlds, that both have strict grammatical rules, but in completely different places. It's a gift to deaf people, and it makes me sad that some people don't give a shit about that and instead ask the doctor to pull the drill, claiming that one size don't fit all..

YW. I agree. I don't understand why anyone would deny such an advantage to a deaf child.

 

[jillio]

I never suggested that a child with a CI would be able to process all fo the sounds that a hearing child would.. We know that a CI doesn't mimic natural hearing and I never suggested that it does.

Then it doesn't allow for complete exposure to language. ASL does.

 

[Jiro]

One size doesn't fit all, but when it comes to education, one size has been shown to fit the majority. IEPs can account for additional services when it comes to those who need extra services. If a child can succeed in an oral only environment, that is still an option. But it is being forced on the majority as the educational environment being reccommended for all. As a consequence, the majority still faces the negative impact of such. We are talking about policy that is set for the majority. A mainstream envronment was designed to address the needs of the majority of hearing children. Not the majority of deaf children. And it is not even doing a very good job of educating the majority for which it was designed. What makes you think it will address the needs of the majority that wasn't even considered in its design?

And, really, you need to come up with a new line. That "one size doesn't fit all" isnot only getting tiresome, but is invalid because no one here is talking about all. We are talking about a majority.

bold font above = AGAIN..... for those who believe ASL shouldn't be taught first......

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? Yes or No? RD - would you like to be first to take a stab at it?

 

[Cheri]

In the case of Cheri, I would expect that you would refer back to the original post in which she stated that TC was a good system because her grammar was fine.

Be honest please, I did not say that.

This is what I said: "We do not need hearing people coming in here and insults the deaf, By the way my grammar sentence is fine. I'm speaking English if you know English." post # 483.

tsk tsk tsk.

 

[Jolie77]

Girls, Let's not get back on that. Let's not break out a catfight and to end up pulling each other's hairs, okay?

I'd hate to end up closing this thread and take actions. If it happens, I will have no choice but to do it.