Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

[Jiro]

Where did I say "others"? I said another

so? it's still same thing. If program A works for group A but not for group B... then program B works for group B but not group C... then program C works for group C but not for group D.... so on so on.... How do we deal with this confusion? Standardized Guideline.

 

[Cheri]

well Shel and Jillio deal with hundred of students per year. So yea - who are we to dispute that? Who knows better on what works, what doesn't work? Them as teachers.... or us as bystanders?

Jillio is not a teacher of the deaf.

 

[jillio]

it's not my model. There are handful of standardized tests like SAT, IQ, and GEDs that ALL states share. If one does not pass SAT and/or GEDs (or high school)... what does that tell you? if the person scores below IQ of 100... what does that tell you? Either he's just slow or he's just not too bright. Everybody lives in different states, have different lifestyle, have different etc. etc. How are we supposed to deal with that on national scale? That's why there's something called - "Standardized" ------. Insert any word in ------- such as test, requirement, guideline, etc.

Exactly. The standardized tests are standardized for a reason. They have been proven to be valid and reliable measurements. That is what the models are based on.

 

[Daredevel7]

Ohhh...so I suppose you're not here to learn from everyone just one person?

OOoOOooo Touche!

RD, just to clarify, are you opposed to the application of a standard policy (since you are for OSDFA*) or just opposed to using BiBi as a standard BECAUSE it has not been proved to be effective for the majority yet?

*I have taken the liberty to abbreviate "One size doesn't fit all" since I am sure people are getting tired of writing/reading it.

 

[Bottesini]

OOoOOooo Touche!

RD, just to clarify, are you opposed to the application of a standard policy (since you are for OSDFA*) or just opposed to using BiBi as a standard BECAUSE it has not been proved to be effective for the majority yet?

*I have taken the liberty to abbreviate "One size doesn't fit all" since I am sure people are getting tired of writing/reading it.

Wrong. All deaf object strenuously to abbreviations and you must in perpetuity, write it out!

Go oral method! Ra ra ra!

 

[jillio]

Jillio is not a teacher of the deaf.

Who said I was? I am an LPCC and a CRC that deals directly with deaf students and their educational placement and functioning.

But, if we want to clarify who is a TOD and who isn't, Cheri is not a teacher of the deaf.

 

[Jiro]

Good luck with the major paradigm shift that seems to be going against conventional wisdom. I am anxious to see how the story ends. I truly wish you luck.

And what conventional wisdom would that be? That an orally based education is best for deaf children despite the fact that literacy rates have been at a disgustingly low point for the last 25-30 years? BTW, I supplied you with support for those statistics.

OOoOOooo Touche!

RD, just to clarify, are you opposed to the application of a standard policy (since you are for OSDFA*) or just opposed to using BiBi as a standard BECAUSE it has not been proved to be effective for the majority yet?

*I have taken the liberty to abbreviate "One size doesn't fit all" since I am sure people are getting tired of writing/reading it.

<waiting for RD's response to above>

 

[jillio]

so? it's still same thing. If program A works for group A but not for group B... then program B works for group B but not group C... then program C works for group C but not for group D.... so on so on.... How do we deal with this confusion? Standardized Guideline.

There you go.

 

[Angel]

That is very poor reasoning. I was oral all the way. I am pretty much able to put my thoughts down, so I could argue that that is the best because it worked for me.

Of course I am still learning ASL as an adult and I don't have much of a social life, but since I am literate (or close to it) I could argue for the oral method.

But someone else could dispute it when a different method worked for them.

I'm glad it works for you.

 

[Bottesini]

I'm glad it works for you.

I was actually being sarcastic to make a point, I am not really advocating for oral.

 

[faire_jour]

What is the reading level of deaf and hard of hearing people?

We have examined large numbers of deaf and hard of hearing students who are quite representative of those throughout the United States. When the Gallaudet Research Institute conducts large educational test standardization studies to obtain norms (percentile scores) for deaf and hard of hearing students, the data collected are used to describe students' achievement. In the last norming of a widely used achievement test, the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition (Harcourt Educational Measurement, 1996), deaf and hard of hearing students aged 8 through 18 were given the test, including the Reading Comprehension subtest. The measure of reading achievement we are using is the Reading Comprehension subtest, a multiple-choice test.

It is important to note that the reading achievement is of deaf and hard of hearing students who are in school. We are not talking about adults, and we are not talking about high school graduates. (I want to clarify this point, because many people ask about adults and about high school graduates, for which we have no data.)

For the 17-year-olds and the 18-year-olds in the deaf and hard of hearing student norming sample, the median Reading Comprehension subtest score corresponds to about a 4.0 grade level for hearing students. That means that half of the deaf and hard of hearing students at that age scored above the typical hearing student at the beginning of fourth grade, and half scored below. The "median" is the 50th percentile, and is one of the ways to express an average, or typical, score. (A "mean" score, or arithmetic average, is not the same as the median.)

The technical report of the norming study (Interpreting the Scores) describes the students and details the methods used. It describes also the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the test when used with deaf and hard of hearing students. The norms booklet presents the test scores and is the source of the 4.0 grade equivalent score for 17- and 18-year-old deaf students in the norming sample. The norms booklet gives test score information for deaf and hard of hearing students aged 8 through 18 on the subtests Word Study Skills, Word Reading, Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics: Problem Solving, Mathematics: Procedures, Spelling, Language, Environment, Study Skills, Science, Social Science, and Listening. Age-based percentile norms are given for Word Reading/Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics: Problem Solving, Mathematics: Procedures, Spelling, and Language. These are the citations for these documents:

Holt, Judith A., Traxler, Carol B., and Allen, Thomas E. 1997. Interpreting the Scores: A User's Guide to the 9th Edition Stanford Achievement Test for Educators of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. Gallaudet Research Institute Technical Report 97-1. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Literacy & Deaf Students

But isn't it true that a huge percentage of ALL Americans are reading at a fourth or fifth grade level. I believe about 1 in 4 hearing people are functionally illiterate. Less than 5% of 17 year olds can read at "appropriate" levels.
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/an...iles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_illiteracy.html

 

[Angel]

Exactly. Nobody has the right to dispute something that works. Now apply that same logic to other methods that work.

 

[jillio]

How can one assess the language skills of deaf students?

We frequently receive requests for advice on language assessment of deaf students, where the focus is on language, not necessarily English language. We recommend you begin by reading Assessing Deaf Students' Academic, Readiness, and Language Skills, by Professor Anne Spragins, located in the web documents containing the Test Reviews for Cognitive Assessment and for Academic/Readiness Assessment. Examine the Test Reviews by Spragins, Blennerhassett, and Mullen to locate tests that could suit your purposes. Several subtests (Reading Comprehension, Word Study Skills, Word Reading, Spelling, and Language) of the Stanford Achievement Test (see the Frequently Asked Questions) may be suitable for assessing achievement in language-related content areas for some students. If you would like to discuss test selection with a Psychology Department faculty member, you may want to examine the research interests of individual faculty members by following the links from the Psychology Department page. Once you have found a person whose area of expertise or research interests aligns with your question, you may contact the person by e-mail (e-mail link is on faculty web page) or by calling the Psychology Department at 202-651-5540 (voice/tty).

Literacy & Deaf Students

 

[Jiro]

But isn't it true that a huge percentage of ALL Americans are reading at a fourth or fifth grade level. I believe about 1 in 4 hearing people are functionally illiterate.

we're not taking ALL Americans into account because you're talking about immigrants, adults, old people, etc. For this argument - the scope is limited to student population.

 

[Jiro]

I was actually being sarcastic to make a point, I am not really advocating for oral.

lol I knew it! You were very crystal-clear about your position on this issue SEVERAL pages ago.

 

[jillio]

But isn't it true that a huge percentage of ALL Americans are reading at a fourth or fifth grade level. I believe about 1 in 4 hearing people are functionally illiterate.

I don't know that a huge percentage of ALL Americans are reading at a 4th or 5th grade level. That is quite a broad statement to make, and I would suggest very innaccurate.

And, yes, literacy is a problem with hearing students as well. So what makes anyone think that a public education system designed for hearing students that is unable to correct these problems with hearing students would be able to increase the literacy rates of a deaf child with different language requirements and cognitive strengths? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[Angel]

I was actually being sarcastic to make a point, I am not really advocating for oral.

Oh, I thought you were serious, (psst? me either)

 

[Bottesini]

Oh, I thought you were serious, (psst? me either)

Well, if we just tell each other, we know we are a couple of jokers!

 

[faire_jour]

I don't know that a huge percentage of ALL Americans are reading at a 4th or 5th grade level. That is quite a broad statement to make, and I would suggest very innaccurate.

And, yes, literacy is a problem with hearing students as well. So what makes anyone think that a public education system designed for hearing students that is unable to correct these problems with hearing students would be able to increase the literacy rates of a deaf child with different language requirements and cognitive strengths? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Certainly never said all. I believe the estimates are around 40% for minorities. I am just trying to put thing in perspective. I know that it is horrible that Deaf children are undereducated, but the truth is that all students are!

 

[jillio]

Certainly never said all. I believe the estimates are around 40% for minorities. I am just trying to put thing in perspective. I know that it is horrible that Deaf children are undereducated, but the truth is that all students are!

I couldn't agree with your last statement more! That is why I say that a public education system designed for hearing students, and is undereducating hearing students it is designed for, will produce even poorer results for a student that has different language and cognitive strengths (e.g. a deaf child).

And no, you didn't say all. You said "a huge percentage of ALL" just as I did.