Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheri
Uh-huh, You've said a lot of negaitives on all three methodologies. There is no studies that show which program is better than another, each program is specifically designed to meet the needs of the deaf. You know deaf children don't come with instuction manuals to tell parents what would work better for this one child.
For a long time some would say that ASL will fail the deaf children because signs itself has no spoken language it has no written form only that it has its own syntax, that's when oral came in, because deaf people did not have any speech skills they call them deaf-mute. I never thought it was right to cut ASL out.
Come to think of it the only counties did not opposed signs were the United States.
It was just not being use often since oral came in better.
Each program has various of ways that each individual can communicate. The only reason I choose TC because it had everything, more than what oral method had to offer.
Bi Bi is just not well known, it will take couple more years to show the studies of the improvement of deaf children's literacy. TC, Oral and Cued Speech has been around for a long time, and there's some flaws in each metholdology but it is not too bad or far the worse.
|
Just very unfortunate that the majority of children in the BiBi programs entered them at a later age with severe language deficients from other programs so it will be hard to measure the success. What we need is a large group of deaf children who have been in the BiBi programs since their diagnosis, but that group is too small to be used as a sample. Maybe in the future, the group will grow in numbers.