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.
|
Cheri, my own son attended a TC program. At the time, there were no Bi-Bi programs, and TC was the best choice. By the time he graduated, they were moving toward a more Bi-Bi approach. There was a time that if you wanted your deaf child to be exposed to sign at all in the educational environment, TC was the only option.
Never did I say that it was the worst option. Nor did I say that it was all bad. I said it had some weaknesses, but all methodologies have strengths and weaknesses. I see Bi-Bi as moving forward and compensating for the weaknesses in TC. It is just an improvement. Just like digital HA is an improvement over analog, or CC is an improvement over open caption, or a text pager is an improvement over TTY, and TTY was an inprovement over having to write letters to communicate. VRS is another improvement.
Bi-Bi does not take speech away from a deaf child. Just like TC, it offers everything...speech, HA, CI, sign. The only difference is the sign is ASL instead of signed English in the classroom. The reason for that is, there have been studies that support increased fluency in both English and ASL is obtained when the 2 languages are kept separate, and English is taught as a second language.
I agree that we need more research on Bi-Bi, but it hasn't been in use long enough to generate that kind of data yet. Educational research is most valid when it is done over several years to see how the child benefits over a long period of time. We do have research showing that the child who is exposed to both sign and speech is the highest achieving subgroup, though, and that would fall in line with Bi-Bi practices.
I'm sorry that you feel as if we have been putting TC down, or saying it has been a bad thing. That is not what shel or I am saying at all. We both agree that TC is a good program, and for some time, it was the best that was offered for deaf children. But there may be a methodology that can make a good thing even better, and our deaf kids deserve the best that can be found.