Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's correct! ;)

It's the same as not all deaf people have the same experience with lipreading. Apparently, some really do seem to understand well enough to feel moderately comfortable with it, and on the other hand some do not. It all depends on the individual, that's why I believe "One size doesn't fit all"

I agree with this too! I need to stop this or people will think I've gone soft. I better go to bed too.
 
That's correct! ;)

It's the same as not all deaf people have the same experience with lipreading. Apparently, some really do seem to understand well enough to feel moderately comfortable with it, and on the other hand some do not. It all depends on the individual, that's why I believe "One size doesn't fit all"

there you go. "some yes..... some no...." Sounds like less than 50-50... sounds unreliable.... I think I can safely say there would be much more than 50% (including "some yes" and "some no") who would benefit from ASL as L1 as the start before becoming bi/multilingual.
 
there you go. "some yes..... some no...." Sounds like less than 50-50... sounds unreliable.... I think I can safely say there would be much more than 50% (including "some yes" and "some no") who would benefit from ASL as L1 as the start before becoming bi/multilingual.

But that was her point. Everyone is not the same. She did not say percentage.
 
Nor are you deaf or a certified teacher of the deaf. Does that make a difference?

Jillio's comment (above) was for rick48... but since I had to catch up last several pages of this thread and noticed something else here.

Rockdrummer,

I noticed that you continue arguing as if oral method should be L1 and ASL as L2 which many of us are opposing with...

It made me wonder where you get the idea as why you oppose with the majority here? So be more fair for your own argument here...

Are or were you (rd) a certified teacher of the deaf or some kind of job where you seen the evidences on the deaf ed (oral-BiBi) then?

Or have you (rd) met thousands of deaf people including all the kinds at Gally, NTID, or other schools or communities where all deaf kinds met in order to verify your opinion?
 
I couldn't agree with your last statement more! That is why I say that a public education system designed for hearing students, and is undereducating hearing students it is designed for, will produce even poorer results for a student that has different language and cognitive strengths (e.g. a deaf child).

And no, you didn't say all. You said "a huge percentage of ALL" just as I did.

:gpost:

If the system is broken and not able to meet the needs of most of it's students, what makes you think it will meet the needs of a minority?
 
But that was her point. Everyone is not the same. She did not say percentage.

exactly. everyone's not the same. Because of this messy, non-standardized guideline - it's "some can... some can't..." That is a very concerning issue. With standardized program for deaf student population - it would be "many can... some can't"
 
there you go. "some yes..... some no...." Sounds like less than 50-50... sounds unreliable.... I think I can safely say there would be much more than 50% (including "some yes" and "some no") who would benefit from ASL as L1 as the start before becoming bi/multilingual.

Exactly. And again with the one size does not fit all. The only people here that seem to using the word all every other post are those opposing bi-bi. Those in favor of bi-bi keep saying "majority". Then the responses come in with the "all" statements. They keep disputing something that isn't even being said.:roll:
 
Jillio's comment (above) was for rick48... but since I had to catch up last several pages of this thread and noticed something else here.

I noticed that you, Rockdrummer continue arguing as if oral method should be L1 and ASL as L2 which many of us are opposing with...

It made me wonder where you get the idea as why you oppose with the majority here? So be more fair for your own argument here...

Are or were you a certified teacher of the deaf or some kind of job where you seen the evidences on the deaf ed (oral-BiBi) then?

Or have you met thousands of deaf people including all the kinds at Gally, NTID, or other schools or communities where all deaf kinds met in order to verify your opinion?

Valid questions, Web730.
 
exactly. everyone's not the same. Because of this messy, non-standardized guideline - it's "some can... some can't..." That is a very concerning issue. With standardized program for deaf student population - it would be "many can... some can't"

Yes. "Many can...some can't." The way it stands now, it is "some can...many can't."
 
Quote by Angel #657; Great, I'm glad you are here to learn but please do not make assumption about the majority of deaf people who have a lack of english skills came from Total Communication since there are many deaf people from all walks of life -- oralist, cued-speech, ASL, SEE, PSE users and also varying degrees of hearing (CI users and hearing aid users) and speech, etc. came from either mainstreamed programs, Total Communication, Bi-Bi etc. Just because one program may works for one child will not necessarily work for another doesn't mean that program failed. each child is different, no child is the same.

The bottom line is there is no one-size-fits-all approach to educating a deaf child.

-------------------------
Quote by jiro #664 answered to Angel; If one program works for one but not others.. keep this going for majority of students. do you know what happens? A massive confusion, inefficiency, and a colossal waste of budget. If standardized curriculum structure works for hearing people, so should for deaf student population.

-------------------------
That's correct and that is why the BiBi approach is the best system to use for the deaf ed system out there for the MAJORITY... despite whoever continue claiming the "one size cant fit all" crap.

Why? That is what jiro explained away as why it was so. Use your common sense, people.

A good post, jiro!
 
Quote by Angel #657; Great, I'm glad you are here to learn but please do not make assumption about the majority of deaf people who have a lack of english skills came from Total Communication since there are many deaf people from all walks of life -- oralist, cued-speech, ASL, SEE, PSE users and also varying degrees of hearing (CI users and hearing aid users) and speech, etc. came from either mainstreamed programs, Total Communication, Bi-Bi etc. Just because one program may works for one child will not necessarily work for another doesn't mean that program failed. each child is different, no child is the same.

The bottom line is there is no one-size-fits-all approach to educating a deaf child.

-------------------------
Quote by jiro #664 answered to Angel; If one program works for one but not others.. keep this going for majority of students. do you know what happens? A massive confusion, inefficiency, and a colossal waste of budget. If standardized curriculum structure works for hearing people, so should for deaf student population.

-------------------------
That's correct and that is why the BiBi approach is the best system to use for the deaf ed system out there for the MAJORITY... despite whoever continue claiming the "one size cant fit all" crap.

Why? That is what jiro explained away as why it was so. Use your common sense, people.

A good post, jiro!

Yes, web730, it is common sense. Or simple logic, whichever way you prefer to say it.
 
Quote by Angel #657; Great, I'm glad you are here to learn but please do not make assumption about the majority of deaf people who have a lack of english skills came from Total Communication since there are many deaf people from all walks of life -- oralist, cued-speech, ASL, SEE, PSE users and also varying degrees of hearing (CI users and hearing aid users) and speech, etc. came from either mainstreamed programs, Total Communication, Bi-Bi etc. Just because one program may works for one child will not necessarily work for another doesn't mean that program failed. each child is different, no child is the same.

The bottom line is there is no one-size-fits-all approach to educating a deaf child.

-------------------------
Quote by jiro #664 answered to Angel; If one program works for one but not others.. keep this going for majority of students. do you know what happens? A massive confusion, inefficiency, and a colossal waste of budget. If standardized curriculum structure works for hearing people, so should for deaf student population.

-------------------------
That's correct and that is why the BiBi approach is the best system to use for the deaf ed system out there for the MAJORITY... despite whoever continue claiming the "one size cant fit all" crap.

Why? That is what jiro explained away as why it was so. Use your common sense, people.

A good post, jiro!

And, a good post to you as well!

:gpost:
 
Rachel I. Mayberry∗, Charlene Chamberlain+, Gloria Waters # & Pauline Hwang∗
∗McGill University, +University of North Dakota, # Boston University
Background
How deaf readers recognize written words is not well understood. Deaf
college students who sign have been found to use phonological
decoding (Hanson & Fowler, 1987), but deaf children who speak have not
(Waters & Doehring, 1990). We ask here whether school-age children who
are deaf and sign use alternate means to decode written words. Two
possibilities are fingerspelling and sign decoding. Both kinds of coding
have been observed in adult readers who are deaf and sign (Treiman &
Hirsh-Pasek, 1983). Fingerspelling has been found to improve deaf
student’s word recognition(Hirsh-Pasek, 1987) and correlate with reading
(Padden & Ramsey, 2000). Deaf children have been observed to use
fingerspelling as they write (Transler et al. (1999).
Participants
48 students participated who had the following characteristics: (1) Age
range from 7 to 16 years; (2) born severely or profoundly deaf; (3)
educated with sign and speech since the age of 3; (4) 50% have deaf
parents; (5) 50% are girls. Reading levels ranged from grade 1 to 8 as
measured by the SAT.
Experiment I: Spelling-Sound Correspondence
Word recognition in relation to spelling-sound correspondence
was measured with a lexical decision task. Stimuli were 152
words and nonwords. Words were of 5 spelling-sound categories:
Regular (bust, dust); regular inconsistent (brave, cave) and
exceptions (have); ambiguous words (blown, flown vs. brown
clown); and strange (yacht, laugh) from Waters & Doehring
(1990).
Speed and accuracy of word recognition increased with reading
proficiency. Beginning readers showed spelling-sound effects,
but not in the expected direction, as Waters & Doehring (1990)
found for deaf children who speak and know no sign.
Beginning readers showed no effects of sign-word correspondence in
fingerspelling recognition, unlike the case for written word recognition.
Written word recognition was faster than fingerspelling recognition
independent of reading level, and more accurate up to a grade
5-6 reading level. This suggests that fingerspelling may not be used
for written word recongition, but rather for expressive and working
memory functions.
Beginning readers recognized more words with consistent sign-word
relations than words with inconsistent relations.
More advanced readers
(grade 5-8) recognized words equally well, independent of sign-word
relationship. This suggests that beginning deaf readers use their sign lexicon
in some way as they learn to read.
Experiment IV: Fingerspelling Recognition
Word recognition in fingerspelling was measured with a lexical
decision task. The stimuli of Experiment II were used but presented
in fingerspelling on a computer screen (one letter at a time).
Experiment II: Sign-Word Correspondence
Word recognition in relation to ASL-sign and English word translation equivalence
was measured with a lexical decision task. Stimuli were 160 words and nonwords.
Words were of two translation types: Consistent sign-word relation (flag, hurt);
Inconsistent sign-word relation (meal, log); such English words are typically
fingerspelled in ASL.
Discussion & Conclusions
Deaf readers who sign do not show sensitivity to spelling-sound
correspondence in lexical decision the way hearing readers do. These
findings are similar to those for deaf readers who know no sign
(Waters
& Doehring, 1990). Beginning readers recognize English vocabulary
they know in sign before other words up to a grade 3-4 reading level; in
lexical decision, they recognize these words more quickly and
accurately up to a grade 5-6 reading level. They also show a larger sight
vocabulary in print than in fingerspelling up to a grade 3-4 level.
Although sign-word correspondence shows effects on beginning
written word recognition, it shows no effects on fingerspelling
recognition. Together these findings show that written word recognition
by children who are deaf and sign is complex and entails multiple
forms that become integrated over time with increasing reading
proficiency.


Hanson, V. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Mem & Cog, 15, 199-207; Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1987). The metalinguistics of
fingerspelling: Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 455-474; Padden, C., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American Sign Language and reading ability in deaf children. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry
(Eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 165-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; Transler, C., et al. (1999). Do deaf children use phonological syllables as reading units? JDSDE, 4, 124-143;
Treiman, R. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). Silent reading: Insights from second-generation deaf readers. Cog Psy, 15, 39-65; Waters, G.S., & Doehring, D. (1990). Reading acquisition in congenitally deaf
children who communicate orally. In T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.), Reading and Its Development (pp. 323-373). New York: Academic Press.
FUNDED by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (410-2004-10232) Mayberry Lab
Word Recognition in Children who are Deaf and Sign
Experiment III: Fingerspelling and Reading Vocabulary
Sight vocabulary was measured with the PPVT (Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test) administered two ways. First the test was given in fingerspelling with no
speech or lip movement. A week later, the test was given again with written
words.
Sight vocabulary increased with reading proficiency in both fingerspelling and
reading. However, beginning readers recognized more English vocabulary in
print than in fingerspelling. By reading grade level 3 to 4, sight vocabulary in
fingerspelling and reading were equivalent. This suggests that deaf children’s
orthographic knowledge is not the initially the same in fingerspelling and print
but that the two systems become integrated with reading experience.
 
I'm trying to catch up on the many pages of this thread that have been added on since I left off this afternoon ..

I need to respond to Jillio's response to my thread about my "individual program" .. and what comes to mind is pre-3rd grade... I didn't mention the story behind that and that's probably important. I attended Tilden, a pre-kindergarten school for the deaf, from 1.5 years old to 4 years old, to learn sign and speech, etc. By age 4 I was deemed ready for kindergarten even though I was younger than the legal age (which is 5 by September 1 in Minnesota.) So I started kindergarten at 4 at Como Elementary which, by what I'm reading, might be a bi-bi program. I was in a classroom with some 20 other students, about half of us were deaf, the other half hearing. During kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade, the teachers signed to the entire classroom. So I didn't need interpreters. And I would get the weekly/daily "timeout" to attend speech therapy. At the end of 2nd grade, my 2nd grade teacher suggested that I would better benefit being placed in my home school district (Como was 20 miles away.) So, I started 3rd grade in my home school district and interpreters started after that.
 
I thought I said "specialized classes"

Specialized classe, self contained classroom, light mainstreamed, whatever. I know dozens of deaf people from this kind of classes, and they are much the same.

I would call those settings very risky because the prinicpal seldom know anything about deafness, and it all depends on the teacher, that is employed by a principal who have accidental knowledge about deaf ed. If this is the mysterious "one size don't fit all" theory in practice I would not recommend it to anyone except deaf parents of deaf children that more easily can evaluate the education. I also feel a bit sorry for the studens because the classes are very small and boring to be in for most deaf children compared to larger bilingual charter schools or state deaf schools. I know of one specialized class where deaf parents pulled their children out just after days and put them in a bilingual charter school because the specialized class was so crappy. The hearing parents kept their children in the specialized class, and failed to notice the crappy teaching. "One size don't fit all"? Nah, needs of parents and evaluation based on THEIR knowledge, yes.

It's interestin that deaf people tends to argue with situations they know of, while hearings tends to argue with general stats and findings. Both have their weakness and advantages. You are a perfect example of the american mainstream way of arguing. As long you don't know the deaf way to argue, you will be limited to understanding arguments from people inside the borders of the american mainstreamed hearing culture. Try to listen to some of the stories deaf people tell you. That's where a lot of the "stats and findings" you search for are. It's interesting that even the deaf oral and TC folks around here keep on telling stories of situations they know of, while the hearing people here keep on yelling "stats and findings!". :lol:

Hope this help you.
 
Specialized classe, self contained classroom, light mainstreamed, whatever. I know dozens of deaf people from this kind of classes, and they are much the same.

I would call those settings very risky because the prinicpal seldom know anything about deafness, and it all depends on the teacher, that is employed by a principal who have accidental knowledge about deaf ed. If this is the mysterious "one size don't fit all" theory in practice I would not recommend it to anyone except deaf parents of deaf children that more easily can evaluate the education. I also feel a bit sorry for the studens because the classes are very small and boring to be in for most deaf children compared to larger bilingual charter schools or state deaf schools. I know of one specialized class where deaf parents pulled their children out just after days and put them in a bilingual charter school because the specialized class was so crappy. The hearing parents kept their children in the specialized class, and failed to notice the crappy teaching. "One size don't fit all"? Nah, needs of parents and evaluation based on THEIR knowledge, yes.

It's interestin that deaf people tends to argue with situations they know of, while hearings tends to argue with general stats and findings. Both have their weakness and advantages. You are a perfect example of the american mainstream way of arguing. As long you don't know the deaf way to argue, you will be limited to understanding arguments from people inside the borders of the american mainstreamed hearing culture. Try to listen to some of the stories deaf people tell you. That's where a lot of the "stats and findings" you search for are. It's interesting that even the deaf oral and TC folks around here keep on telling stories of situations they know of, while the hearing people here keep on yelling "stats and findings!". :lol:

Hope this help you.



I've cited a little girl I know of who is deaf and doing extremely well having learned ASL first and then spoken language, yet I'm disregarded because I'm hearing. I've also cited the struggles of the deaf students I went to school with, too, and that's disregarded by some as well.

Oh well. I may not be deaf, but I know what I've seen.

Such is life, I guess. I'm not deterred.

:gpost:, Flip!
 
well Shel and Jillio deal with hundred of students per year. So yea - who are we to dispute that? Who knows better on what works, what doesn't work? Them as teachers.... or us as bystanders?

I'd say both if the bystander experienced first hand or saw first hand the failures of a given system, but otherwise, I get your point!

:gpost:
 
we're not talking about one approach for all. We're talking about a standardized approach for MAJORITY. Just like majority of K-12 schools and Colleges have same/similar curriculum guideline. That's why we have SAT, GMAT, LSAT, etc. Apparently - there is no standardized approach for deaf student population in USA.

My point exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top