Why - Why the Medical Society constantly pressure on the Parents?

[owen06]

Sorry jillio, but I think you should have added this information in your previous post in order to place it in the correct context. The way it has been presented in the post is slightly misleading.

With that being said, I would like to add this from the paper that jillio previously quoted:

In addition to accounts of increased training efforts, much dialogue on the methodology has been presented in the literature. Few writers, however, are substantiating or refuting claims with rigorous quantitative research. In the past decade the profession's three national journals, the American Annals of the Deafi the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, and Sign Language Studies, have published only one article (i.e., Andrews, Ferguson, Roberts, & Hodges, 1997) providing any empirical data specifically on the issue of dual language methodology. Related journals and university dissertations have not provided much literature, either. (A list of studies and their results is provided in Table 1). While these studies may indicate promise for the methodology, sample sizes are small and cannot be generalized back to the total population served in the United States. Clearly additional investigation is needed.

Another limitation of these studies is that most of them targeted residential programs for the deaf. Adopting a sociolinguistic view, researchers prefer this setting over others for its availability of linguistic and cultural resources, believed to be instrumental components in addressing academic needs of bilingual deaf and hard of hearing children. While this perspective is valid and does enable researchers to understand certain phenomena more fully, more than 70% of the nation's deaf and hard of hearing children are not served in the residential setting (GRI, 2005; Johnson & Cohen, 1994; Schildroth & Hotto, 1996). Implementation in other settings (e.g., public and charter schools) must also be examined.

Quantitative investigation regarding the impact of ASL/English bilingual education in public schools is virtually nonexistent in the literature.

Thanks

 

[Buffalo]

I think Rick they must have forgotten. The only reason I joined this site is because they were not being kind and they were saying things they had no idea about.

What do you mean that we have no idea about what we were saying????? We are Deaf and we have experienced all kind of problems in the oral schools. We have firsthand experiences so we do know what we are talking about. Many of us are saying that the deaf kids today should have ASL in their lives. Bi-Bi education take care of that.

 

[jillio]

Sorry jillio, but I think you should have added this information in your previous post in order to place it in the correct context. The way it has been presented in the post is slightly misleading.

With that being said, I would like to add this from the paper that jillio previously quoted:



Thanks

And, how exactly, does that discount the results that were found in numeorus studies, owen06? Of course there is no quantitative data regarding bilingual/bicultural education in the public schools. There are no bilingual/bicultural programs in existence in the public schools. One cannot collect empirical data on that which does not exist. The bilingual/bicultural programs in existence are those that are found in schools for the deaf.

In addition, the majority of educational methodology research is of a qualitative nature, not a quantitative nature. This particular study, however, has data that is of a quantitative nature, and therefore is a mixed study.

All studies and research has limitations. I challenge you to find a single research design that does not include limitations. It is a part of the the research process to report limitations. Limitations in no way discount the validity of the findings. Likewise, these studies, when taken singly, do use a small sample size. However, when taken cummulatively, the sample size is increased, and the findings are consistent over all of the studies.

I might ask you, given that you are not an educator, a parent of a deaf child, nor deaf yourself, what is your motive for such obvious support of oral only education? Your posts are all indirect opposition or contradiction to the benefits of a bilingual/bicultural education for deaf children. Why is that?

You can paste the entire study here, if you like. It will still indicate that the children tested from the bilingual/bicultural programs are testing out at higher literacy levels across academic domains than those in oral programs in the mainstream. And, when you quote a paper directly, oweno6, you need to cite. My previous citation does not release you from the obligation of providing citation for direct quotes or paraphrases that you have used.

 

[shel90]

It only goes nicely and engaging when people are saying what you want to hear.

Wow..u are really on a high horse arent u? That was very insulting and I just reported u.

 

[shel90]

What do you mean that we have no idea about what we were saying????? We are Deaf and we have experienced all kind of problems in the oral schools. We have firsthand experiences so we do know what we are talking about. Many of us are saying that the deaf kids today should have ASL in their lives. Bi-Bi education take care of that.

Yes, we dont need sources to use to back up our own personal experiences. :roll: I cant believe how ridiculous this whole thing is. We share our experiences but we have "no idea"...yea right! Talk about lack of respect. LOL!

 

[owen06]

And, how exactly, does that discount the results that were found in numeorus studies, owen06? Of course there is no quantitative data regarding bilingual/bicultural education in the public schools. There are no bilingual/bicultural programs in existence in the public schools. One cannot collect empirical data on that which does not exist. The bilingual/bicultural programs in existence are those that are found in schools for the deaf.

I wasn't trying to discount the study, I only posted those quotes because they pertained to the list that you posted and I think that you should have added them. The way you posted the table suggested that the results were generalizable because you said that it had been proven. This is not that case. With regards to the quantitative data, the quote said that there was not much available--in both deaf and public schools.

In addition, the majority of educational methodology research is of a qualitative nature, not a quantitative nature. This particular study, however, has data that is of a quantitative nature, and therefore is a mixed study.

My point: the authors themselves say that the data is promising but should not be generalized.

All studies and research has limitations. I challenge you to find a single research design that does not include limitations. It is a part of the the research process to report limitations. Limitations in no way discount the validity of the findings. Likewise, these studies, when taken singly, do use a small sample size. However, when taken cummulatively, the sample size is increased, and the findings are consistent over all of the studies.

Once, again, I didn't post this to discount the study. My point was that you can't put all of the studies together and claim that it is proven. All of the studies used different methodologies etc, and you can't group that together. The paper you posted mentioned that and I felt that that information needed to be included in your posting.

I might ask you, given that you are not an educator, a parent of a deaf child, nor deaf yourself, what is your motive for such obvious support of oral only education? Your posts are all indirect opposition or contradiction to the benefits of a bilingual/bicultural education for deaf children. Why is that?

Wow, I think you are getting defensive and making some serious (and inaccurate) generalizations here. I have never claimed oral only is the way to go. It is not obvious what I support through my postings. However, I am in favor at looking at all sides of an issue. I posted that information because the way you presented the table was misleading.

You can paste the entire study here, if you like. It will still indicate that the children tested from the bilingual/bicultural programs are testing out at higher literacy levels across academic domains than those in oral programs in the mainstream. And, when you quote a paper directly, oweno6, you need to cite. My previous citation does not release you from the obligation of providing citation for direct quotes or paraphrases that you have used.

There is no need to post the entire study, that would take up unecessary bandwidth. As far as bilingual/bicultural--that specific program according to the paper, doesn't exist. It is simply ASL/English bilingual. I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, I'm only saying that the information that I posted was needed to put the table you posted into context.

You are right. I should have cited the paper again. It was late and I apologise. However, whether I cited the paper or not is really not the debate here. Here is the citation anyways-from jillio's original posting:

Delana, Gentry, & Andrews (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English bilingual education: Considering public schools. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(1). p 73-87

 

[jillio]

There is no need to post the entire study, that would take up unecessary bandwidth. As far as bilingual/bicultural--that specific program according to the paper, doesn't exist. It is simply ASL/English bilingual. I'm not trying to say it doesn't work, I'm only saying that the information that I posted was needed to put the table you posted into context.

You are right. I should have cited the paper again. It was late and I apologise. However, whether I cited the paper or not is really not the debate here. Here is the citation anyways-from jillio's original posting:

Delana, Gentry, & Andrews (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English bilingual education: Considering public schools. American Annals of the Deaf. 152(1). p 73-87

First of all, I did not say anything had been proven. "Proof" was a word used by others. I said Support. Research does not prove or disprove anything. It simply supports a hypothesis. Once that hypothesis has been supported through replication, it is assumed to be true. Nor did I say anthing was generalizable. I said there were several studies that supported the bi-bi apporach, and posted the results of some of the said studies.

And, ASL/English bilingual is bi-bi as one cannot study the language without studying the culture, as culture is received through peripheral exposure through language.


Perhaps you don't think that your viewpoint is obvious through you postings, but the simple fact that you continue to post in support of monolingual education in numerous threads gives the implicit impression that you are, indeed, in favor of English, oral, monolingual education. You post in support of oral methods, and consistently question bi-bi approaches.

How is asking what your interest is defensive? I would venture to say that your refusal to answer the question is indication of defensiveness. My question was posted simply to seek an answer to the context of your posts.

When I spoke of "proof". I was referring to the others demand that I "prove" that there are numerous studies available, not to the research itself. As stated before, research supports. You are jumping into an discussion which has a rich and long lasting history. Perhaps you did not understand that. But since you did, I will ask again, "What is your interest in deaf education, given that you are neither a TOD, a parent of a deaf child, nor deaf yourself?"

 

[rick48]

Ah, yes, I spend my time engaged in meaningful interaction and dialogue exchange with the deaf community...

What is the name of that forum so we can check it out?

 

[rick48]

Why are you asking for factual basis when you are getting the fact straight from the horse's mouth? There are several of us who was raised as oral. I agreed with Shel90 because of my oral education in the elementary school. So Neigh!

Because accounts from anonymous posters who I do not know cast some doubt as to which end of the horse the information is coming from. Just because someone posts something does not make it true and definitely cannot be used as an universal truism.

I listen to what you say and give it the weight I think it deserves. I also note that the experiences of those who are profoundly deaf and mainstreamed orally without a cochlear implant are, from my experience, markedly different from those who are implanted.
Rick

 

[rick48]

Here we go with the childish attempts to inflame. Please stick to the topics being discussed. This sort of behavior does nothing but indicate that you have nothing relevent to add. You could start by addressing the citaitons to research that were demanded over and over again.

What citations, I believe you only listed one? I am not a subscriber to that journal and am attempting to see if I can get a copy of it.

 

[rick48]

It was my experience. Us Deaf who had the oral education said that we don't have equal access to education. We missed too many words and we often have to work hard just to catch up with the hearing people.

And your point is? Since when do you speak for all who are deaf? Your expereince is noted and it differs from others.

 

[rick48]

Sorry jillio, but I think you should have added this information in your previous post in order to place it in the correct context. The way it has been presented in the post is slightly misleading.

With that being said, I would like to add this from the paper that jillio previously quoted:



Thanks

Owen,

Great catch and exposure of the fact that her pattern of cutting and pasting is not just limited to posters on this forum!

Have to say, not shocked by it though.
Rick

 

[owen06]

First of all, I did not say anything had been proven. "Proof" was a word used by others. I said Support. Research does not prove or disprove anything. It simply supports a hypothesis. Once that hypothesis has been supported through replication, it is assumed to be true. Nor did I say anthing was generalizable. I said there were several studies that supported the bi-bi apporach, and posted the results of some of the said studies.

You are portraying it as generalizable. That is the problem. You portray yourself as an authority in this topic--ever heard of the appeal to authority fallacy?

And, ASL/English bilingual is bi-bi as one cannot study the language without studying the culture, as culture is received through peripheral exposure through language.

Then why does the paper you cited say that there is only ASL/English bilingual programs?

Perhaps you don't think that your viewpoint is obvious through you postings, but the simple fact that you continue to post in support of monolingual education in numerous threads gives the implicit impression that you are, indeed, in favor of English, oral, monolingual education. You post in support of oral methods, and consistently question bi-bi approaches.

Constantly question bi-bi? I have not questioned approaches, I have questioned the continuous contradictions that are being made. Too bad you are making such an unsubstantiated statement regarding myself. In fact, I have said things contrary to what you are claiming.

I think that ASL is great when children get an accurate portrayal of it.

How is asking what your interest is defensive? I would venture to say that your refusal to answer the question is indication of defensiveness. My question was posted simply to seek an answer to the context of your posts.

Venture all you wish. I think the context was made clear from my last post.

I am in favor at looking at all sides of an issue. I posted that information because the way you presented the table was misleading.

When I spoke of "proof". I was referring to the others demand that I "prove" that there are numerous studies available, not to the research itself. As stated before, research supports. You are jumping into an discussion which has a rich and long lasting history. Perhaps you did not understand that. But since you did, I will ask again, "What is your interest in deaf education, given that you are neither a TOD, a parent of a deaf child, nor deaf yourself?"

My mother is fluent is ASL. That in itself makes me interested.

 

[jillio]

My mother is fluent is ASL. That in itself makes me interested.

So there's the language aspect. Why the educational aspect?

 

[jillio]

What citations, I believe you only listed one? I am not a subscriber to that journal and am attempting to see if I can get a copy of it.

Go back and read the post. The research is cited as well.

 

[jillio]

Owen,

Great catch and exposure of the fact that her pattern of cutting and pasting is not just limited to posters on this forum!

Have to say, not shocked by it though.
Rick

I posted results. And if you will read my explanation to oweno6, you will see that what he added does not change the results.

BTW, it wasn't cut and pasted.

And, I have posted that which supports my view and my statements. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Kalista]

Are Parents of Deaf Babies Fully Informated of Choices?

Why are the hearing professional did not give out any more information the the hearing parents about the Deaf children?

Vlog is excellent !! Barb Digi will explain you more.

BarbDiGi's blogspot

 

[jackiesolorzano]

What do you mean that we have no idea about what we were saying????? We are Deaf and we have experienced all kind of problems in the oral schools. We have firsthand experiences so we do know what we are talking about. Many of us are saying that the deaf kids today should have ASL in their lives. Bi-Bi education take care of that.

What I meant was that people here were talking about my children without knowing my children. This is what I said. While I understand that you had a difficult it does not mean that my children are. This is what I am saying that each child is different and that each child needs something different.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Wow..u are really on a high horse arent u? That was very insulting and I just reported u.

Good for you and I hope it makes you feel better about yourself. And of course you have never insulted me or what I do for a living. Step back and look at what you have posted about me.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

Yes, we dont need sources to use to back up our own personal experiences. :roll: I cant believe how ridiculous this whole thing is. We share our experiences but we have "no idea"...yea right! Talk about lack of respect. LOL!

What I was directly referring to was some of your orginial posts about my children. And no you have no idea what you are talking when you are directly referring your experiences to my children's experiences.