Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

[shel90]

I really like the technique of highlighting the English phrases and idioms for easy recognition to train them to interpret automatically. That really creates a work overload for you, but the trick is to get them to understand the different conceptual meanings for the same word, such as "like" as in affection for and "like" as in "same as". That is where ASL comes in so handy for explaining conceptual differences. Are the hearing teachers reluctant to do these modifications because they don't understand the need for them, or because they don't think it would be helpful? Just curious.

No, they do those kinds of modifications.

I am saying that they have always felt reluctant using both signing and speech to teach. Here is why according to them...

The hearing teachers that have worked at my place of employment for 20 plus years were there when my school changed from a TC program to a BiBi program. They said that they can see the difference in their lessons when using just one language instead of both at the same time. They said they never felt comfortable Sim-comming the lessons cuz too often the kids were misunderstanding the concepts and they would have to repeat or act them out which was very time-consuming for them. Also, they said that both the teeachers and the students would get burnt out from cognitive overloading.

They said since ASL is a conceptual language itself, the concepts are taught much more effectively and the kids are learning faster therefore less time wasted on explaining one concept over and over again.

For that, I will take their word for it cuz that is about 20 teachers agreeing to the same thing.

 

[shel90]

From what I know is the bi bi methodology is 20 years old, You have told me this was a new program instead of trusting your word for it, I should have done more research but the problem is there wasn't enough, from what I've came to learned that the first school that use the bi bi program was in 1989 which it was The Learning center for the deaf children in Framingham, Mass. And then in 1990 Indiana for the deaf use bi bi program too and so on. The point is that this methodology is just not well known.

This debate is never going to be completely resolved, we go around and around. Everyone has an opinion. But from what I've see on here is some of you are making TC so bad to the public. I have been in a TC program and I have nothing bad to say about that methodology. I got to learned signs, lip reading and speech. Who could ask for anything better than that?

Some of you have said that Bi Bi is better than TC or better than Cued Speech or better than Oralism. The point is no deaf is the same as another deaf person. What might work for this deaf individual might not work for another deaf individual. Now I can really see how hearing parents must felt when they're trying to do all that they can. Education is an extiemely important to ALL OF US.

My goal is to get all hearing parents of deaf children to get involved in ASL, I don't care what Education they decide on for their child, I just want them to use signs too and stop focusing on hearing and speech ONLY, Its the same I would say to Deaf Adults to stop focusing on ASL ONLY. Come on, we should not leave no child left behind. They have that right to know as many communication tools as possible.

Now for hearing parents of deaf children, ASL has been around since 1817, and it should be well perseved as long as there's deaf people on this earth with or without the use of cochlear implants. If you want a close bond with your deaf child then its time to put signs in your life, because you will reget it down the roads from now, I'm not kidding either.

Enough said by me.

How are Deaf adults focusing on ASL only? We are using English to communicate with each other on this forum, arent we?

If u are talking about using English as spoken language, some Deaf adults simply cannot develop speech skills so how can you tell them to stop focusing on ASL only? If they were to try to use their intelligible or nonextistence speech skills, nobody would be able to understand them. My brother has tried with our family but nobody could understand him. Is that his fault? So he uses writing and reading to communicate with hearing people sometimes so he is actually using English not just ASL only.

If u think all deaf children needs to develop good speech skills, then u are welcome to come to my school and teach those who were unable to develop speech skills to do it. I would love for all of them to be able to develop good speech skills but in reality, some are just unable to do so. Why? Who knows?

 

[Cheri]

I took the time to explain to you how I teach but instead I get criticized. If u dont agree, that's fine.

Same goes for you, you criticized TC when you have never took TC, just because jillio says this and that, does it make her right and those who experienced TC wrong? Jillio is hearing and she has not walked a mile in any deaf person's shoes to say what she says.

 

[shel90]

Same goes for you, you criticized TC when you have never took TC, just because jillio says this and that, does it make her right and those who experienced TC wrong? Jillio is hearing and she has not walked a mile in any deaf person's shoes to say what she says.

HUH? Cuz of what Jillo said? Wow!

I have stated in other posts that I have worked in TC programs before so I am basing my choices of what I saw in those TC programs. Nothing to do with what Jillo said. Pls..I have a mind of my own.

I am glad that the TC programs worked for u.

 

[Cheri]

I have stated in other posts that I have worked in TC programs before so I am basing my choices of what I saw in those TC programs.

Oh so you worked in the TC was that at a deaf school or at a public school?

 

[shel90]

Oh so you worked in the TC was that at a deaf school or at a public school?

Both

I have more than 10 years in the field of education starting with volunteer work in classrooms in 1994, going to ASU for special ed, working as an aide, going to Gallaudet for Deaf Ed, working in different schools for practicum and internship, and then my job.

I have seen it all except for Cued Speech.

My first exposure to the Bi Bi approach was at The Learning Center in Framingham and I was blown away by the high quality of teaching there. That was when I made my decision about what methodology I want to use. I had never seen Deaf kids so young (6 years old) reading and writing at that level and how high their critical thinking skills were. The classroom lessons were very insightful and enlightening and that was when I thought "That's it! That's the kind of quality teaching I want to do."

 

[Cheri]

TC setting in a public school is mainstream for sure you were not in the mainstream because you would have to hear in order to be an interpreter. Maybe you were working in special education classroom with a small group of deaf students.

 

[shel90]

TC setting in a public school is mainstream for sure you were not in the mainstream because you would have to hear in order to be an interpreter. Maybe you were working in special education classroom with a small group of deaf students.

I would have to hear in order to be an interpreter? What do u mean by that?


That one TC program had a self-contained class of 13 deaf/hoh from kindergarden to 8th grade. Depending on their academic level, some of them went to the mainstreamed classes for some classes and then return to the self-contained classes. There were interpreters. I worked with the kids both in the mainstreamed and in the TC class. None of these kids had special needs..they were all severly language delayed so all 13 of them were together for Language Arts and taught the same lesson. It was a crappy program in my opinion.


I also worked with deaf kids who were mainstreamed meaning they were placed with hearing kids all day. Those kids were not in a TC program..they were in an oral-only classes and some of them had interpreters and some of them did not.
I have worked in hearing classes too.

 

[jillio]

No, they do those kinds of modifications.

I am saying that they have always felt reluctant using both signing and speech to teach. Here is why according to them...

The hearing teachers that have worked at my place of employment for 20 plus years were there when my school changed from a TC program to a BiBi program. They said that they can see the difference in their lessons when using just one language instead of both at the same time. They said they never felt comfortable Sim-comming the lessons cuz too often the kids were misunderstanding the concepts and they would have to repeat or act them out which was very time-consuming for them. Also, they said that both the teeachers and the students would get burnt out from cognitive overloading.

They said since ASL is a conceptual language itself, the concepts are taught much more effectively and the kids are learning faster therefore less time wasted on explaining one concept over and over again.

For that, I will take their word for it cuz that is about 20 teachers agreeing to the same thing.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. My bad! Their experience with both methods is valuable experience. And it is in line with what many others, both educators, counselors, and educational psychologists have said, as well.

 

[jillio]

Same goes for you, you criticized TC when you have never took TC, just because jillio says this and that, does it make her right and those who experienced TC wrong? Jillio is hearing and she has not walked a mile in any deaf person's shoes to say what she says.

No, Cheri, I'm not deaf, nor have I ever claimed to know what it is to experience life as a deaf person. On the contrary, I have always said that I have gone out of my way to consult with deaf people because they are the only ones who truly know what it is to be deaf, and they are the experts on their own needs. I constantly advocate for services to be provided from a deaf perspective rather than from a hearing perspective. I am the one that reccommends involving deaf individuals in the decisions made and the policies set that affect them.

I have, however, studied deaf education and psychology of deafness in depth. I have studied cognitive psychology as it applies to learning styles of deaf children. I have studied developmental psychology as it applies to language acquisition of deaf children. I have been directly involved in deaf education and advocacy for deaf students for 16 years. I have studied the psychosocial impact of deafness, and how changes in the environment such as school placement and methodology benefit deaf students. I have done research on these topics. My dissertation is based on these concepts. I talk with deaf students on a daily basis, and I listen to what they tell me, and use it as a foundation for understanding what I know about these other subjects as they apply to deafness. I have not only seen TC programs in operation, I have spoken in depth to students who were educated in TC programs. I know the philosophy behind TC, and I know the methodology used in a TC environment. I know the rationale used in the development of TC programs. I have also witnessed Bi-Bi education, and know the methodology used and the philosophy behind it. I understand the rationale on which Bi-Bi education is developed. I have spent considerable time and effort comparing and contrasting the two methodologies, and applying them as they fit the needs of specific learning preferences and cognitive processes. My opinions regarding Bi-Bi and TC are based on extensive klnowledge and the experience of those who have been educated in the methods, and those who have taught using the methods. Whether I am hearing or deaf is not the issue, because I use the deaf population as my focus group in both assessing the effectiveness, and evaluating the differences.

Shel is not agreeing with me just because she thinks I am right. She, too, has extensive experience and education to back up her opinions. She and I have seen the same things, and have reached the same conclusions, and we have done so separately. She has been involved with different programs than I have, she has worked with different deaf students that I have, she attended a different college than I did, so she had different coursework and professors. But we are seeing the same things in her experience and in my experience. That alone tells me that it isn't just what I have experienced, or just what she has experienced, but that there is a common thread that holds true across different groups of students.

No one has said that TC is bad. In fact, for several years, TC was the best choice available. But, just as with anything, there are strengths and there are weaknesses in the methodology and the philosophy that have been well documented across disciplines. Bi-Bi has the possibility to overcome the weaknesses. It isn't about making a judgement of one program being bad and one being good. It is about improving the educational environment for deaf children, and making changes that provide greater opportunity.

 

[jillio]

TC setting in a public school is mainstream for sure you were not in the mainstream because you would have to hear in order to be an interpreter. Maybe you were working in special education classroom with a small group of deaf students.

TC is used in several self contained deaf programs in various public school systems. Shel is not talking about an integrated special education classroom, but self contained programs in a public school system. Nor is she talking about a mainstreamed placement where there is one deaf student in the class who is assigned a terp. There is a difference between a self contained program, an integrated special ed classroom, and a mainstream classroom and they all employ different accommodations.

 

[Cheri]

. Shel is not talking about an integrated special education classroom, but self contained programs in a public school system..

My question was direct to Shel not you, can you please stop speaking for her and stop jumping on a bandwagon. It just makes me don't want to bothered to post any further.

 

[jillio]

My question was direct to Shel not you, can you please stop speaking for her and stop jumping on a bandwagon. It just makes me don't want to bothered to post any further.

I wan't speaking for Shel, I was reaffirming what she already said. Shel is perfectly capable of speaking for herself. I was simply explaining the differences between programs because there appeared to be some confusion about that.

 

[shel90]

No, Cheri, I'm not deaf, nor have I ever claimed to know what it is to experience life as a deaf person. On the contrary, I have always said that I have gone out of my way to consult with deaf people because they are the only ones who truly know what it is to be deaf, and they are the experts on their own needs. I constantly advocate for services to be provided from a deaf perspective rather than from a hearing perspective. I am the one that reccommends involving deaf individuals in the decisions made and the policies set that affect them.

I have, however, studied deaf education and psychology of deafness in depth. I have studied cognitive psychology as it applies to learning styles of deaf children. I have studied developmental psychology as it applies to language acquisition of deaf children. I have been directly involved in deaf education and advocacy for deaf students for 16 years. I have studied the psychosocial impact of deafness, and how changes in the environment such as school placement and methodology benefit deaf students. I have done research on these topics. My dissertation is based on these concepts. I talk with deaf students on a daily basis, and I listen to what they tell me, and use it as a foundation for understanding what I know about these other subjects as they apply to deafness. I have not only seen TC programs in operation, I have spoken in depth to students who were educated in TC programs. I know the philosophy behind TC, and I know the methodology used in a TC environment. I know the rationale used in the development of TC programs. I have also witnessed Bi-Bi education, and know the methodology used and the philosophy behind it. I understand the rationale on which Bi-Bi education is developed. I have spent considerable time and effort comparing and contrasting the two methodologies, and applying them as they fit the needs of specific learning preferences and cognitive processes. My opinions regarding Bi-Bi and TC are based on extensive klnowledge and the experience of those who have been educated in the methods, and those who have taught using the methods. Whether I am hearing or deaf is not the issue, because I use the deaf population as my focus group in both assessing the effectiveness, and evaluating the differences.

Shel is not agreeing with me just because she thinks I am right. She, too, has extensive experience and education to back up her opinions. She and I have seen the same things, and have reached the same conclusions, and we have done so separately. She has been involved with different programs than I have, she has worked with different deaf students that I have, she attended a different college than I did, so she had different coursework and professors. But we are seeing the same things in her experience and in my experience. That alone tells me that it isn't just what I have experienced, or just what she has experienced, but that there is a common thread that holds true across different groups of students.

No one has said that TC is bad. In fact, for several years, TC was the best choice available. But, just as with anything, there are strengths and there are weaknesses in the methodology and the philosophy that have been well documented across disciplines. Bi-Bi has the possibility to overcome the weaknesses. It isn't about making a judgement of one program being bad and one being good. It is about improving the educational environment for deaf children, and making changes that provide greater opportunity.

 

[shel90]

I wan't speaking for Shel, I was reaffirming what she already said. Shel is perfectly capable of speaking for herself. I was simply explaining the differences between programs because there appeared to be some confusion about that.

Thanks for the explaination...the more people that explain maybe it will clear up the confusion about TC and mainstreamed programs.

 

[shel90]

My question was direct to Shel not you, can you please stop speaking for her and stop jumping on a bandwagon. It just makes me don't want to bothered to post any further.

I dont see that she was speaking for me. She was just reaffirming what I explained about TC programs.

If she was speaking for me she would say somthing like "Well, Shel disagrees with u because this or that." That I wouldnt like if she did that but that wasnt the case.

Because she has been in the field of deaf education professionally and personally, she knows what I am talking about. Why is that considering jumping on the bandwagon?

 

[Cheri]

No one has said that TC is bad. In fact, for several years, TC was the best choice available. But, just as with anything, there are strengths and there are weaknesses in the methodology and the philosophy that have been well documented across disciplines. Bi-Bi has the possibility to overcome the weaknesses. It isn't about making a judgement of one program being bad and one being good. It is about improving the educational environment for deaf children, and making changes that provide greater opportunity.

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.

 

[shel90]

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.

Just very unfortunate that the majority of children in the BiBi programs entered them at a later age with severe language deficients from other programs so it will be hard to measure the success. What we need is a large group of deaf children who have been in the BiBi programs since their diagnosis, but that group is too small to be used as a sample. Maybe in the future, the group will grow in numbers.

 

[Silentwolfdog]

I got one question. What is TC?

 

[shel90]

I got one question. What is TC?

Total Communication

Total Communication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total Communication (TC) is an approach to deaf education that aims to make use of a number of modes of communication such as signed, oral, auditory, written and visual aids, depending on the particular needs and abilities of the child.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 References
3 External links
4 See also



[edit] History
Total Communication was originally developed by David Denton at the Maryland School for the Deaf in 1967, although the term “total communication” was first used by Roy Holcomb in California and was adopted by the Maryland school as the official name for their educational philosophy. TC was supposed find a middle ground in age-old disputes between oralism and manualism, and as an alternative to Simultaneous Communication. In practice, however, most Total Communication programs use some form of Simultaneous Communication.

Total Communication educational programs have been established in the UK, France, U.S.A, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, France, Germany and elsewhere. In the United States, TC was most popular during the 1970s and 1980s, when most schools and programs for children who are deaf, as well as most major organizations in the field supported the TC philosophy[1]. Today, the debate seems to be between TC programs and bilingual-bicultural education.