Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[shel90]

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.[/QUOTE]


As a teacher, I refuse to accept that.

 

[shel90]

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.

You got it!

 

[shel90]

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

I agree too.

 

[rockdrummer]

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!!!

I'm sorry you will have to refresh my memory... I don't recall anyone saying that in this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[rockdrummer]

.....The issue being discussed in this review paper is whether a top down approach or a bottom up approach would be the more effective methodology to use in a bi-bi classroom. That is quite another topic altogether.....

The title and content of the article suggest otherwise. This review is about considering the claims of Bilingual-Bicultural Models of Literacy Education for Deaf students.

The claims examined are;

Linguistic Interdependance
The use of native sign languages
Written Language as L2
And Whole language top down models

The article goes on to say

The cognitive demands of becoming literate call for a pedagogy that emphasizes the integration of top-down and bottom-up skills, and in our view, to reduce pedagogy to a whole-language, top-down versus bottom-up debate not only oversimplifies the issue, but misrepresents it, putting the implementation of the valuable components of each at risk.

Source: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...ls&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

 

[rockdrummer]

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

I know it's a lot to read but I wanted to add to what Jillio has stated;

Mason and Ewoldt (1996) argue for a whole language/bilingual program that focuses on the construction of meaning through relevant, enjoyable, natural communication (p. 294). Ewoldt (1996) describes a top-down model as one that “places emphasis on the construction of meaning for text, with the understanding of grammar and individual words as outcomes of this meaning based in engagement” (p.7). She goes further and claims that lacking knowledge of sentence form and print characteristics need not interfere with the ability to make meaning from text. In a similar vein, Livingston (1997) argues for an “uncommon sense theory, much like a whole language theory,” which would support the view that language acquisition and learning in general are tacit, holistic, and top-down processes (p. 13-18)
Although Ewoldt and others argue against contrived models of reading and writing experiences, “there is still no research evidence that immersion in rich experience is sufficient for all children and not all instruction is contrived, isolated and inconsistent with development” (Cazden, 1992, p. 12). Preparedness for literacy varies from child to child, and effective pedagogy must take into account these individual differences and must reflect a solid understanding of the knowledge and processes involved in learning to read and write (Adams, 1990). teachers across grade levels must understand the course of literacy development and the role explicit instruction plays along the way. Certainly few would deny that language learning should be holistic and interactive and that “children need to perceive it as functional for them in relation to activities they find both challenging and personally meaningful” (Wells, 1994, p. 82) But to focus only on the top-down aspects of the language learning process ignores the persuasiveness of claims for the critical role played by “bottom-up” skills (Gray and Hosie, 1996, p. 219). For example, while there is certainly more to learning to read than phonics, the extent to which phonics needs to be made a focus of attention varies from learner to learner, and, depending on their prior experiences, some will need deliberately given, explicit help while others will pick up this working knowledge in passing. In a research review concerning students who are struggling to learn to read, Aaron (1997) concludes that “whatever the form in which instruction is delivered, it has to be noted that word recognition is a precursor to reading comprehension. This means that for a child who as difficulties in both word recognition and comprehension, improvement of the former skill would become the priority” (p. 489). there is no reason to expect, or research evidence to support, that deaf learners can forego the bottom-up aspects that deaf students most often struggle with (see Kelly, 1995; Paul, 1998). Svartholm (1994), herself an advocate for bilingual education for deaf children, questions the efficacy of natural, whole-language approaches to the teaching of English in which the directed teaching of language principles is “banished” from the classroom. She argues that developing literacy in a second language is no doubt a difficult task for any child, but for a deaf child this task seems to be still more difficult since learning to read and to write the language is entirely identical with learning the language itself.
Ignoring the bottom-up skills simply because deaf students have the greatest difficulty with them avoids dealing with the issue. The cognitive demands of becoming literate call for a pedagogy that emphasizes the integration of top-down and bottom-up skills, and in our view, to reduce pedagogy to a whole-language, top-down versus bottom-up debate not only oversimplifies the issue, but misrepresents it, putting the implementation of the valuable components of each at risk.

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

 

[rockdrummer]

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?

I don't believe anyone can make either claims with a high degree of certainty. There is a study that supports kids with a moderate fluency in ASL skills benefit them in learning English skills. I don't know that they suggest ASL first but nevertheless. I started a thread on that topic a little over a year ago. You can find the abstract and full text to the article here.

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-educati...-american-sign-language-english-literacy.html

The title: A Study of the Relationship Between American Sign Language and English Literacy

I have not yet come across a study or research paper on the benefits of ASL as first language. However there are many posts I am still going through on this topic and I may come across something. Or if anyone knows of any please provide information that may lead us to such studies, research or reviews. thank you

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

Despite the widespread use of manually coded English (MCE) systems during the past 20-25 years to model English language for deaf children in the United States and prepare deaf children for literacy, reading achievement scores remain virtually the same today (1996 Stanford Achievement Test Norms) as they were before the development of MCE systems.

Source: 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

I am not nitpicking but those are not quite the same statements. Maybe I missed something.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

Unfortunately while early hearing screening is now occurring I don't know that anyone knows their baby is deaf right off the bat. There are also kids (as in my case) that become deaf while they are toddlers. And no I am not saying nor did I ever say that ASL should not be used. And I believe you are mistaken if you think there is one method that works for the majority. I would be the first one on the bandwagon if there is proof of this supported by a majority of professionals that study educational methods and approaches. Don't get me wrong flip. As I have said on many occasions, I am not against the bibi model. I just dont see any evidence that it is beneficial for the majority but what I have seen echoed over and over is that one size does not fit all. It seems natural for native signing deaf adults to want their children to use ASL (home language) as their L1 langage just as it seems natural for non signing hearing parents of deaf kids to want English (home language) to be the L1 language. There is no doubt that access to both English and ASL is important. Personaly I believe the schools should be able to accommodate both scenarios. In other words the kids that use ASL as their home L1 language can focus more on English skills in school and the kids that use English as their home L1 language would focus more on ASL in school. Maybe that's not a good idea.. I am no professional but it seems to me that would help to accommodate both scenarios.

 

[rockdrummer]

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.

Which size fits the majority when it comes to the education of deaf children? What supports your statement that oral only environments are being forced on the majority as the educational environment being recommended for all? I have seen nothing in my searches and in my real life experiences that support that claim. In fact I find the opposite.

Oral and mainstream are only a couple of approaches. I don't personally agree with them but I also know from listening to deaf people that some have not only benefited, they are happy their parents took that route. The older generation of deaf folks that had to endure the horrible experiences would obviously have a different perspective and rightfully so. And I am sorry but I have to disagree with you that one size doesn't' fit all is invalid in this context. I'm sorry if you think I overuse that term. I honestly try to use it where I feel it's appropriate.

 

[rockdrummer]

......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.

Not confusing at all. Honestly nobody can predict an outcome. I think its natural for deaf nativie signing parents of deaf children to want ASL as their home language and hearing non signing parents of deaf kids would want English as their home language. It seems to me that if kids gain benefit from a CI that exposure to language would come faster than it would if the parents are non signers. To be clear I am not suggesting that exposure to ASL should be eliminated. I believe access and exposure to both languages is important. The question of which one and where in my view depends on if the parents are deaf native signers or hearing non signers.

 

[rockdrummer]

Good point. I don't want to close down any threads either. But, after thinking about it, I feel I must add this:



If that is what Jillio believed, then that was all she had to say. Going the extra step to actually correct her grammar (when not asked to do so) was demeaning. All that does is increase insecurity/negative feelings when we’ve already experienced so much of that (and this has been discussed in many other threads.) Any shortcomings we may have don’t need to be highlighted. That IS an important issue. There, I'm done now, I promise!

 

[rockdrummer]

*fingerpoints at Daredevel7*
SHE STARTED IT ALL.

Seriously folks, so far I've seen evidence that there is no concrete evidence that BiBi is best for majority, and I've seen evidence that BiBi solves (or minimizes) a lot of problems that other methods had.

My conclusion: BiBi method, at least, shows PROMISE to be a minimum standard for doctors/audiologist to recommend.

Bingo!!!

 

[rockdrummer]

so since you concluded that BiBi method is, at best questionable for majority.... what would you say is best option for majority then?

The best option in my view is going to have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Dare I say... One size doesn't' fit all.

 

[shel90]

Then, I guess no furthur discussion of the BiBi method is needed. I think the thread has served its purpose or I just have nothing more to share. Having said that, I still go strongly by my beliefs due to what I have personally seen out there.

 

[Angel]

Good question. Part of me wonders why we have to stick with the majority as far as what approach to take? It seems that many of us have cited personal examples and they get thrown out because an individual response/experience does not infer the best for the majority. I'm not disputing anyone here in any way; I still fail to understand where statistics come from that show so many deaf people are failing at literacy levels. Makes me think the environment I happen to be in happens to be an exception -- that the majority of deaf people I know (and I know quite a few) came from either bi-bi or TC mainstreamed programs and most of us have turned out fine. I will say there are some that are lacking, but it absolutely does not seem like the majority. And since I'm referring this large pool of deaf people I know across the entire metro area (and there is a very large deaf population here,) where are these statistics coming from? That only makes me think each school/IEP programs need (and have been, at least around here,) to evaluate what's working for their students and what's not. And if action isn't taken upon those students whose program isn't working for them, then that IS a problem. This seems, to me, to be an individualized approach and not a majority approach.

 

[rockdrummer]

......I did, however, make it clear that I was not crticizing the individual, but simply showing an example of how our eductional system convinces deaf students that they are learning what they need to learn, when in fact, they aren't. ....... If anyone was offended by that, then I apologize. But I can assure you, the post was not meant to be personal in any way, but simply to provide a real life example of the deficits in the educational system.

I really don't want to harp on this but only wish to make a point that I believe we have all experienced. While most of the time I try to take my time and type things out there are times where I am either in a hurry or maybe getting sleepy or I don't have time to run my posts through the grammar and spellchecker and my post ends up riddled with spelling and grammar errors. There are also times where I am responding to a heated post and am emotional about it and that also causes me to make many mistakes. I don't always have time to go back and edit the mistakes out of my posts. I see this many times from many people. That in no way suggests that the educational system has failed me nor should it be used as an example to support that claim. Just my two cents.

By the way Jillio... you misspelled educational and criticizing in the post above *Ducking

 

[Bottesini]

I really don't want to harp on this but only wish to make a point that I believe we have all experienced. While most of the time I try to take my time and type things out there are times where I am either in a hurry or maybe getting sleepy or I don't have time to run my posts through the grammar and spellchecker and my post ends up riddled with spelling and grammar errors. There are also times where I am responding to a heated post and am emotional about it and that also causes me to make many mistakes. I don't always have time to go back and edit the mistakes out of my posts. I see this many times from many people. That in no way suggests that the educational system has failed me nor should it be used as an example to support that claim. Just my two cents.

By the way Jillio... you misspelled educational and criticizing in the post above *Ducking

I don't think you are harping on it. I think it is important because I know when I get angry and upset my grammar and writing show it. I am certain I am not the only one. It is really counterproductive to dispirit someone who is trying to contribute, by pointing out their shortcomings.

 

[rockdrummer]

...I said it in another thread, but it bears repeating. We are using the IEP in a distorted manner. It is intended to provide for those that fall outside the majority. We instead, are using it to accommodate the majority when it comes to deaf ed...

I'ts always been an annual thing with my boy and I assumed all deaf kids had them. I never imagined it was being used in a distorted fashion.

 

[Tousi]

Typos and consistent grammatical errors are worlds apart!