"Importance of Morphemic Awareness to Reading Achievement..."

Babyblue said:
Then why not make a video of you presenting an example of SEE.

:) I have seen poster present videos before to show Different Sign Language and how they do it.
Click to expand...

I think that is a very good suggestion.
 
DeafCaroline said:
This is what Shel90 had to say about SEE and she's a teacher for young deaf kids:
"Sometimes I use SEE if the child has a strong foundation in ASL, lots of printed words posted for the younger ones, and a lot of hands on activities with words instead of just direct teaching because most of the time that doesnt work."

http://www.alldeaf.com/deaf-educati...reness-reading-achievement-3.html#post1931559
...
Click to expand...
Right, so both Shel and DeafBajagal, both teachers of deaf students, seem to be expressing that there's a good use for SEE as a tool for teaching literacy, which is what this study is about. They aren't, and the study isn't talking about using SEE as a primary language. So, why do you object to CSign's posting of this study from the latest issue of a preeminent journal on deaf studies edited by a leading researcher at NTID? I don't see how the majority of Deaf oppose the use of SEE in this way.
 
Babyblue said:
Then why not make a video of you presenting an example of SEE.

:) I have seen poster present videos before to show Different Sign Language and how they do it.
Click to expand...

That certainly is an idea. I think I'd be more comfortable selling my soul to the Devil though.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FN6_BBVMNI]ASL vs SEE: Super-cali-fragil-istic-ex-pi-alidocious - YouTube[/ame]
 
My take on the article...

It seems to me the kids referred to in the paper don't have English morphemic awareness, nor do they have ASL morphemic awareness because they did not have the opportunity to acquire language appropriately. That lack of morphemic awareness is simply the result of language delays and deficitis.


This paper is cofusing because they have mixed studies done with hearing kids and one or two studies done with deaf kids together, and then attempted to apply them all to deaf kids. The fact of the matter is, morphemic awareness is something that kids who have a native language (ASL for the deaf, English for the hearing) intuit from the acquisition of language. One does not need to have a foundation in English in order to have morphemic awareness. ASL has morphemes, too, and awareness that other concepts can be represented by adding to a root sign is intuited.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6drv_kpqw8]ASL vs SEE: The Bank! - YouTube[/ame]
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsyHnuPHhY4]ASL vs SEE: "I Wanna F********!" - YouTube[/ame]
 
GrendelQ said:
Right, so both Shel and DeafBajagal, both teachers of deaf students, seem to be expressing that there's a good use for SEE as a tool for teaching literacy, which is what this study is about. They aren't, and the study isn't talking about using SEE as a primary language. So, why do you object to CSign's posting of this study from the latest issue of a preeminent journal on deaf studies edited by a leading researcher at NTID? I don't see how the majority of Deaf oppose the use of SEE in this way.
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere on that PDF that the paper was edited by someone at NTID. how did you know this?

I went direct to NTID to see what they had to say about SEE and evidently, not a hell of a lot.

But overall in my research, most people who use SEE don't use it properly which kinda defeats its purpose when the intent of SEE is to demonstrate visually the morphology of English language, particularly grammar.

Found this page which has people commenting on SEE and what they think of it: Using SEE (Signed Exact English) | Eh? What? Huh?
 
GrendelQ said:
Right, so both Shel and DeafBajagal, both teachers of deaf students, seem to be expressing that there's a good use for SEE as a tool for teaching literacy, which is what this study is about. They aren't, and the study isn't talking about using SEE as a primary language. So, why do you object to CSign's posting of this study from the latest issue of a preeminent journal on deaf studies edited by a leading researcher at NTID? I don't see how the majority of Deaf oppose the use of SEE in this way.
Click to expand...

You don't see how the majority of the Deaf oppose it? I do, I see it everywhere.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't see anywhere on that PDF that the paper was edited by someone at NTID. how did you know this?

I went direct to NTID to see what they had to say about SEE and evidently, not a hell of a lot.

But overall in my research, most people who use SEE don't use it properly which kinda defeats its purpose when the intent of SEE is to demonstrate visually the morphology of English language, particularly grammar.

Found this page which has people commenting on SEE and what they think of it: Using SEE (Signed Exact English) | Eh? What? Huh?
Click to expand...

Very common comments that I have heard throughout the Deaf community about SEE.
 
wow.... 4th notice this time....

CSign - you stated in other thread that you're working on from SEE to ASL. I asked if you have found ASL a lot simpler and easier to communicate with than SEE.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't see anywhere on that PDF that the paper was edited by someone at NTID. how did you know this?

I went direct to NTID to see what they had to say about SEE and evidently, not a hell of a lot.

But overall in my research, most people who use SEE don't use it properly which kinda defeats its purpose when the intent of SEE is to demonstrate visually the morphology of English language, particularly grammar.

Found this page which has people commenting on SEE and what they think of it: Using SEE (Signed Exact English) | Eh? What? Huh?
Click to expand...
The journal is edited by Mark Marschark and is affiliated with ntid.
 
Back
Top