View Single Post
Old 01-28-2008, 06:28 PM   #365 (permalink)
rockdrummer
Weapon of Mass Percussion
 
rockdrummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 2,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by flip View Post
Jillio already did a good response, but want to add that bi-bi and TC programs as a last resort for deaf students, not oral programs, clearly shows problems with facilicating student centered learning in oral deaf education.

Oral deaf education, bi-bi or TC are not specific teaching styles but modes of communication.
With all due respect flip, I'm not sure I understand or agree with those statements. It looks like you are saying that there are problems with facilitating student centered learning in bi-bi and TC programs? Please correct me if I have mis-understood that. Also I think that each of those approaches can be considered teaching styles. At least with my limited knowledge I would consider them as such.

Education consists of much more than language. Requiring language in order to learn is a given. The purpose is to point out the fact that one size doesn't fit all in educational approaches which has been re-enforced by the information I have provided amongst other things. That is not to say that within a given program kids will or wont do well. There are successes and failures in all programs. Even kids within a specific program will advance at different rates. This happens to hearing kids too. The importance of language aquisition can't be understated but there is much beyond aquiring language that should be considered.

Personally, I like the idea of brain based learning. I also like the idea of fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style. I subscribe to the theories that suggest to use different approaches in order to stimulate the mind. One might even argue that could apply to learning language as well. To me fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style would be a true IEP.
rockdrummer is offline   Reply With Quote