- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 45,078
- Reaction score
- 323
http://www.gallaudet.edu/documents/cummins_asl-eng.pdf
In sum, knowing ASL does not interfere with learning to read printed English.
Many of us already knew that.
The deaf children who made steady progress in both ASL and MCE [manually coded English] also made steady progress in reading English; the children who made progress only in MCE did not.
Ok adding MCE systems as teaching tools doesnt do any harm but like I said before, as long as Deaf children have acquired a strong first language in ASL for deep thinking.
In summary, there is consensus in the research literature that acquisition of a strong conceptual foundation in a language during the pre-school years is a prerequisite for subsequent literacy development in English. ASL clearly constitutes an appropriate language for early conceptual development for those children who have, or are provided with, access to a signing community. For Deaf children who are not provided with access to a signing community, the effort to acquire oral language in the early years may limit the extent to which they are enabled to use that language for communication, conceptual development, and engagement with their worlds. With respect to MCE, while the issue is controversial and beyond the scope of this review, MCE appears to be less easily acquired as a first language by Deaf children and less flexible in its ability to express complex ideas and serve as a language of cognitive development (Kuntze, 1998; Livingstone, 1983).
1983 and 1998 research shows the same thing. I have personally seen that myself in the last 15 years.
Our preliminary results indicate that after age 9, high ASL-fluent deaf children of hearing parents were outperforming their less ASL-fluent peers on several English writing tasks.
Of course, that age when children approach the stage of deeper thinking and more complex language usage, we see the difference.
In sum, knowing ASL does not interfere with learning to read printed English.
Many of us already knew that.
The deaf children who made steady progress in both ASL and MCE [manually coded English] also made steady progress in reading English; the children who made progress only in MCE did not.
Ok adding MCE systems as teaching tools doesnt do any harm but like I said before, as long as Deaf children have acquired a strong first language in ASL for deep thinking.
In summary, there is consensus in the research literature that acquisition of a strong conceptual foundation in a language during the pre-school years is a prerequisite for subsequent literacy development in English. ASL clearly constitutes an appropriate language for early conceptual development for those children who have, or are provided with, access to a signing community. For Deaf children who are not provided with access to a signing community, the effort to acquire oral language in the early years may limit the extent to which they are enabled to use that language for communication, conceptual development, and engagement with their worlds. With respect to MCE, while the issue is controversial and beyond the scope of this review, MCE appears to be less easily acquired as a first language by Deaf children and less flexible in its ability to express complex ideas and serve as a language of cognitive development (Kuntze, 1998; Livingstone, 1983).
1983 and 1998 research shows the same thing. I have personally seen that myself in the last 15 years.
Our preliminary results indicate that after age 9, high ASL-fluent deaf children of hearing parents were outperforming their less ASL-fluent peers on several English writing tasks.
Of course, that age when children approach the stage of deeper thinking and more complex language usage, we see the difference.
