Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer
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.
|
Sorry for beeing unclear! I was saying that bi-bi is the ultimate place for student centred learning, or teacher centred, for deaf students. When students fails in other programs, it's a sign that those programs aren't able to facilicate students with proper teaching style. Students are seldom sent away from bi-bi, but often gets students from mainstream and oral programs. The philiosophy behind bi-bi and student centred learning are striking similar. But I strongly disagree that bi-bi or oral deaf educations are specific teaching styles. Bi-bi can facilicate different teaching styles, as oral education can do. Speech, ASL, listening, lipreading and so on can influence teaching styles, but speech vs. sign language and teaching styles are two very different things to me.
If one program can't provide different teaching styles, it's very rigid, limiting and showing signs of outdated pedagogy. Teaching styles can be limited due to lack of communication and language input and output, and here language comes into the picture.
Hope this was more clear.