SEE is a language... It's English...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd like to read that research. Because in terms of what I've seen, your statement really rings true with me.
 
AlleyCat said:
I'd like to read that research. Because in terms of what I've seen, your statement really rings true with me.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to email you copies. I have a couple of articles I am working through now.
 
Sounds good! It sounds like the kind of research I'd enjoy reading. I like reading things I relate to, whether on a personal basis or a d/Deaf basis.
 
posts from hell said:
Alright. Since you did not answer. My many gaps, as you call them, can be attributed to my learning via the use of SEE. Now you can personally see what I am advocating against, by telling others to use ASL with their kids.

Would you want other kids to have the same gaps that I have? I would wager not, so, it's time for you to see to it that other parents don't do whatever suits THEM. Preferably you let them do what is the best for the KID.

So much for your false sense of superiority. I feel sorry for you. I'm glad others have SEEn the same.
Click to expand...

:laugh2: My decision not to answer you is not due to a false sense of superiority. It's because you asked me if I was claiming to know the reason for your issues, and I don't, nor would I venture a guess. You were simply behaving belligerently, as usual, not really wanting an answer anyway. I described my daughter's gap in exposure to English that we have worked to fill in the context of the vast amount of research about deaf literacy issues. You can apply those learnings to yourself if you want, or call yourself a cautionary tale, but I'm not doing so.

I'm an advocate for early and sustained bilingual exposure and education, for incorporating both ASL and English from the outset, from within those first critical 2 years of a child's life, if possible.

There are many approaches that I'm familiar with, but which we don't pursue (SEE, AVT, Cued Speech, etc.). If a person finds these tools or approaches useful and gets positive results, I think that's great, and I'll read those experiences with interest, respecting their decisions, just as I respect your decision to educate your daughter as you see fit, even if it differs from what we have chosen for our daughter.

But just because my daughter is thriving in a bi-bi school, her primary language has been ASL, and yet despite a gap of several years she's been acquiring English as effortlessly as a typical hearing child, I'm not going to bleat like a sheep on cue and condemn some other approach just because it's one I haven't taken. Another child might do better using some other combination of language and academic placement. You can see how well some, like Sheila, have done, using a very different approach. You might also suggest that my child would do as well or better using some other combination -- and I've seen research that supports a different approach, too. Jillio and DeafSkeptic recently posted Marschark's "Deaf Students' Reading Challenges," in this thread, which includes the following:
Bilingual education is sometimes offered as a solution to this situation [deaf students’ reading challenges] (Center for ASL/English Bilingual Education and Research, 2002), but there is little empirical evidence to support its use (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Rydberg, Gellerstedt, & Danermark, 2009).
Click to expand...

I don't take that as a slap in the face. I'm sure that research is dead on. I'm OK with someone recommending an oral approach or a CS or SEE approach to me. But I'm also very aware of my child's needs and learning style and right now we're very happy with our approach.

So, even in the face of research such as that above, and with many shining examples of deaf people who have achieved great things after pursuing other approaches, we have made a decision that I'd expect people to respect, not to harass us over the way people are harassing CSign for her decisions.

And I respect your decision, and CSign's, and Jillio's, and Faire Jour's, and ... well, I think those are all of the participating parents of deaf kids on the forum who have made their communication / academic decisions to date. And I look forward to watching supporting the newer parents, like AandEMomma and Frankie's mom make informed choices, whatever they may be. The research converges on this point: there's no one single magical path that works for all deaf children, we have to find what works for each child.
 
GrendelQ said:
:laugh2: My decision not to answer you is not due to a false sense of superiority. It's because you asked me if I was claiming to know the reason for your issues, and I don't, nor would I venture a guess. You were simply behaving belligerently, as usual, not really wanting an answer anyway. I described my daughter's gap in exposure to English that we have worked to fill in the context of the vast amount of research about deaf literacy issues. You can apply those learnings to yourself if you want, or call yourself a cautionary tale, but I'm not doing so.

I'm an advocate for early and sustained bilingual exposure and education, for incorporating both ASL and English from the outset, from within those first critical 2 years of a child's life, if possible.

There are many approaches that I'm familiar with, but which we don't pursue (SEE, AVT, Cued Speech, etc.). If a person finds these tools or approaches useful and gets positive results, I think that's great, and I'll read those experiences with interest, respecting their decisions, just as I respect your decision to educate your daughter as you see fit, even if it differs from what we have chosen for our daughter.

But just because my daughter is thriving in a bi-bi school, her primary language has been ASL, and yet despite a gap of several years she's been acquiring English as effortlessly as a typical hearing child, I'm not going to bleat like a sheep on cue and condemn some other approach just because it's one I haven't taken. Another child might do better using some other combination of language and academic placement. You can see how well some, like Sheila, have done, using a very different approach. You might also suggest that my child would do as well or better using some other combination -- and I've seen research that supports a different approach, too. Jillio and DeafSkeptic recently posted Marschark's "Deaf Students' Reading Challenges," in this thread, which includes the following:


I don't take that as a slap in the face. I'm sure that research is dead on. I'm OK with someone recommending an oral approach or a CS or SEE approach to me. But I'm also very aware of my child's needs and learning style and right now we're very happy with our approach.

So, even in the face of research such as that above, and with many shining examples of deaf people who have achieved great things after pursuing other approaches, we have made a decision that I'd expect people to respect, not to harass us over the way people are harassing CSign for her decisions.

And I respect your decision, and CSign's, and Jillio's, and Faire Jour's, and ... well, I think those are all of the participating parents of deaf kids on the forum who have made their communication / academic decisions to date. And I look forward to watching supporting the newer parents, like AandEMomma and Frankie's mom make informed choices, whatever they may be. The research converges on this point: there's no one single magical path that works for all deaf children, we have to find what works for each child.
Click to expand...

Marshark, et.al., in the research you referred to, does recommend staying with a bilingual approach, but addressing language and literacy issues from more specific cognitive and information processing strategies specifically for the deaf. Which is basically what I have been saying all along. Yet, some people (?) tend to get upset when I suggest that the deaf have specific cognitive processing issues that need to be addressed.:cool2:

That paraphrase of Marshark's quote is extremely misleading. You are attempting to take it out of context and, as a consequence, are missing the intent behind his statement.
 
GrendelQ said:
...there's no one single magical path that works for all deaf children...
Click to expand...

There essentially is: Deaf children should be immersed in a sign language rich environment from as early an age as possible. The only people insisting that there's no "magic formula" are those who think that learning a spoken language should be a priority.
 
Mountain Man said:
There essentially is: Deaf children should be immersed in a sign language rich environment from as early an age as possible. The only people insisting that there's no "magic formula" are those who think that learning a spoken language should be a priority.
Click to expand...

Obvious, isnt it?
 
Mountain Man said:
There essentially is: Deaf children should be immersed in a sign language rich environment from as early an age as possible. The only people insisting that there's no "magic formula" are those who think that learning a spoken language should be a priority.
Click to expand...

What about those who insist on SEE? They say it prepares them to learn English when they start reading. Nothing to do with spoken language. About them, what say you?
 
:whistle:

I'm finding out some REALLY interesting information. I find it super hilarious how some people behave on AD, and off AD.

I would consider it trolling, straight up.
 
posts from hell said:
Simple, SEE isn't language rich.
Click to expand...

Mountain Man said that those people who insist that there is no magic formula are all for spoken language. I was just asking him if that includes people who support SEE.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Mountain Man said that those people who insist that there is no magic formula are all for spoken language. I was just asking him if that includes people who support SEE.
Click to expand...

I see that, and I provided my personal input. We can wait for MM to reply.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Mountain Man said that those people who insist that there is no magic formula are all for spoken language. I was just asking him if that includes people who support SEE.
Click to expand...

I believe that he'd say yes it would.


SEE is a poor alternative to ASL for the following reasons:
it's cumbersome so people will default to PSE even if they have a strong bias toward English which pretty much defeats the purpose of SEE.

Two, it mangles the syntax and the signed concepts of ASL which will lead to confusion for those who have limtied use of English and evne folks with good English skills. Using it this way can mislead others to thinking ASL is visual English; I had a lot of unleanring to do as I learned SEE before ASL. My English was already good before I first learned SEE so it's not responsible for my English skills.

Thus we have people signing butter and then fly when it would have been much better to link two thumbs using the five hand shape and making a fluttery motion. We're not taking about flying sticks of butter!

SEE does have lilmited uses for teaching English but as a main communication method? HELL NO!
 
deafskeptic said:
I believe that he'd say yes it would.


SEE is a poor alternative to ASL for the following reasons:
it's cumbersome so people will default to PSE even if they have a strong bias toward English which pretty much defeats the purpose of SEE.

Two, it mangles the syntax and the signed concepts of ASL which will lead to confusion for those who have limtied use of English and evne folks with good English skills. Using it this way can mislead others to thinking ASL is visual English; I had a lot of unleanring to do as I learned SEE before ASL. My English was already good before I first learned SEE so it's not responsible for my English skills.

Thus we have people signing butter and then fly when it would have been much better to link two thumbs using the five hand shape and making a fluttery motion. We're not taking about flying sticks of butter!

SEE does have lilmited uses for teaching English but as a main communication method? HELL NO!
Click to expand...
it mangles English as well.
 
deafskeptic said:
I believe that he'd say yes it would.


SEE is a poor alternative to ASL for the following reasons:
it's cumbersome so people will default to PSE even if they have a strong bias toward English which pretty much defeats the purpose of SEE.

Two, it mangles the syntax and the signed concepts of ASL which will lead to confusion for those who have limtied use of English and evne folks with good English skills. Using it this way can mislead others to thinking ASL is visual English; I had a lot of unleanring to do as I learned SEE before ASL. My English was already good before I first learned SEE so it's not responsible for my English skills.

Thus we have people signing butter and then fly when it would have been much better to link two thumbs using the five hand shape and making a fluttery motion. We're not taking about flying sticks of butter!

SEE does have lilmited uses for teaching English but as a main communication method? HELL NO!
Click to expand...

:)

I understand why people hate SEE and strongly advise others to stay away from it. Just wondering if Mountain Man believes that if one is using SEE, they really are advocating for spoken language.
 
Daredevel7 said:
What about those who insist on SEE? They say it prepares them to learn English when they start reading. Nothing to do with spoken language. About them, what say you?
Click to expand...

The research does not support it.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Mountain Man said that those people who insist that there is no magic formula are all for spoken language. I was just asking him if that includes people who support SEE.
Click to expand...

Those who use SEE do so because it supposedly models spoken language. Therefore the use of SEE indicates a priority in spoken language is inherent in the choice.
 
jillio said:
The research does not support it.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I am not saying anything about SEE itself. I only repeated what some people claim about SEE. I simply asked MM if he believed that SEE users think that spoken language should be a priority.

Mountain Man said:
The only people insisting that there's no "magic formula" are those who think that learning a spoken language should be a priority.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Those who use SEE do so because it supposedly models spoken language. Therefore the use of SEE indicates a priority in spoken language in inherent in the choice.
Click to expand...

I see. That type of answer was all I was looking for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top