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

Jiro said:
CSign - My god..... what in god's name are you doing???? you are shooting us down... correcting us... lecturing to us... you have repeatedly told us that you are not fluent nor expert in ANY sign languages. We have years years years of experience in ANY sign languages and we know what works best for deaf people and what doesn't.

Why are you still bickering with us????? wow.... Are you here to learn from us or to lecture us????
Click to expand...

Okay Jiro :roll:

Edit to add: I am fluent in SEE, and well on my way to becoming fluent in ASL :ty:
 
Last edited:
shel90 said:
I know you are but some people do use it as a sole language approach and I just cringe just thinking about it....not because I love ASL but because of the thought of deaf children not getting the right language model during their formative years of language development. All I can just CROSS my fingers that they come out with no language deficits. It is like watching a car speed down into a busy highway with no sign of slowing down and me closing my eyes being afraid to see what will happen and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Click to expand...

You should do that for kids that have access to PSE. That's something to be fearful of in children still developing their language. SEE, when used properly is a complete language model. That's the point.
 
shel90 said:
I know you are but some people do use it as a sole language approach and I just cringe just thinking about it....not because I love ASL but because of the thought of deaf children not getting the right language model during their formative years of language development. All I can just CROSS my fingers that they come out with no language deficits. It is like watching a car speed down into a busy highway with no sign of slowing down and me closing my eyes being afraid to see what will happen and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. But, for the time being, lets take the study at face value. A study regarding SEE as a tool to teach literacy and stick to the subject.

Bringing in Language acquisition just muddles the waters and creates controversy when there doesn't need to be.

This is really beginning to sound like a lot of people want to disregard CSign no matter what she posts simply because she chose to use SEE.

That's wrong, Shel. Biases in any form is toxic. I'm not saying I agree with using SEE to aquire language. I don't. I've been on this forum long enough to have learned that ASL is best, but, again; by bringing Language Acquisition into the topic, you're muddying the waters.

While we're on the subject, sure a deaf child can use other means besides SEE to learn to read. I'm sure many have. I'm not saying it's the only tool out there, but it IS a tool, so why not let CSign put it out there? If it works for someone, great.

What is the harm? Frankly, I don't see one.
 
How did it go for you when you learned SEE? Did that go easily, or was ASL easier for you?
 
Banjo said:
We don't need a novice user of SEE telling us how to learn or teach English. A whole bunch of us are already fluent in SEE and we are quick to point out that it's not effective.
Click to expand...

:hmm: Ok Banjo.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Yeah, I agree. But, for the time being, lets take the study at face value. A study regarding SEE as a tool to teach literacy and stick to the subject.

Bringing in Language acquisition just muddles the waters and creates controversy when there doesn't need to be.

This is really beginning to sound like a lot of people want to disregard CSign no matter what she posts simply because she chose to use SEE.

That's wrong, Shel. Biases in any form is toxic. I'm not saying I agree with using SEE to aquire language. I don't. I've been on this forum long enough to have learned that ASL is best, but, again; by bringing Language Acquisition into the topic, you're muddying the waters.

While we're on the subject, sure a deaf child can use other means besides SEE to learn to read. I'm sure many have. I'm not saying it's the only tool out there, but it IS a tool, so why not let CSign put it out there? If it works for someone, great.

What is the harm? Frankly, I don't see one.
Click to expand...

It is the risks that deaf children get put in for the sake of hearing people's need to have them meet their needs that I just cannot accept.

Sure some will do fine while others wont but the risk is there. Hearing children are not being put at those risks.

The only way for hearing children to be put at those kinds of risks if they are placed in an environment where spoken English is changed to "spoken ASL"...then some will end up with language deficits and some will overcome it and be fine but the risks will be there. I would NOT accept changing spoken English to follow ASL grammar. It is not a language and I wont accept it as much as I love ASL.

Why allow deaf children be put in those kinds of risks when hearing children aren't?

I am very very protective of deaf children even though I dont know them personally because I know what it is like to put under that kidn of risk. I was so F**** lucky I didnt end up with language delays nor deficits but my brother, unfortunately, wasnt so lucky.

That pisses me off. Do you understand?
 
CSign said:
You should do that for kids that have access to PSE. That's something to be fearful of in children still developing their language. SEE, when used properly is a complete language model. That's the point.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION - SEE is not a complete language model therefore it cannot be used correctly in ANY manner.

Ever wonder why was it necessary to include "when used properly" phrase??? Simple - it's broken, incorrect, incomplete, confusing, ineffective, and I can go on more with my dictionary.

Dozens of us know SEE language from childhood and have used it for several years into adulthood. Why are you correcting us and disagreeing with us?
 
sallylou said:
Wirelessly posted (droid)

You don't just plop a book in front of a deaf kid. You make a sign then show him the word. There's a serious lack of common sense here.
Click to expand...

Ok. And on the other side of the coin I could take the approach I took. Use English naturally with SEE so that his acquisition of English was natural, and I didn't need to sit down with him and show him the word followed up with a sign. He had already internalized the English language, and the ability to recognize what a word means as well as the sign.

I'm not hating on other ways of "teaching" English, but this way worked for my son. He acquired and internalized English naturally.
 
CSign said:
Ok. And on the other side of the coin I could take the approach I took. Use English naturally with SEE so that his acquisition of English was natural, and I didn't need to sit down with him and show him the word followed up with a sign. He had already internalized the English language, and the ability to recognize what a word means as well as the sign.

I'm not hating on other ways of "teaching" English, but this way worked for my son. He acquired and internalized English naturally.
Click to expand...

okie dokie.

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.
 
CSign said:
but this way worked for my son. He acquired and internalized English naturally.
Click to expand...

It can be somewhat "effective" until of a certain age. After that, SEE won't be so effective due to the advanced linguistics of English.
 
shel90 said:
I know you are but some people do use it as a sole language approach and I just cringe just thinking about it....not because I love ASL but because of the thought of deaf children not getting the right language model during their formative years of language development. All I can just CROSS my fingers that they come out with no language deficits. It is like watching a car speed down into a busy highway with no sign of slowing down and me closing my eyes being afraid to see what will happen and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Click to expand...

It's still apples and oranges, Shel.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It's still apples and oranges, Shel.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Language deficits can ruin a deaf child's life and can place them in group homes for life. I have seen it personally happen tooo many times.
 
shel90 said:
No it is not. Language deficits can ruin a deaf child's life and can place them in group homes for life. I have seen it personally happen tooo many times.
Click to expand...

My son doesn't have language deficits, quite on the contrary. There are countless others who grew up with SEE who also didn't have language deficits. They demonstrate a solid command of English, and with reading comprehension. It's there. In the study I provided...and no one is discussing it...
 
CSign said:
My son doesn't have language deficits, quite on the contrary. There are countless others who grew up with SEE who also didn't have language deficits. They demonstrate a solid command of English, and with reading comprehension. It's there. In the study I provided...and no one is discussing it...
Click to expand...

Pls reread what I said ...

It is the risks that deaf children get put in for the sake of hearing people's need to have them meet their needs that I just cannot accept.

Sure some will do fine while others wont but the risk is there. Hearing children are not being put at those risks.

The only way for hearing children to be put at those kinds of risks if they are placed in an environment where spoken English is changed to "spoken ASL"...then some will end up with language deficits and some will overcome it and be fine but the risks will be there. I would NOT accept changing spoken English to follow ASL grammar. It is not a language and I wont accept it as much as I love ASL.

Why allow deaf children be put in those kinds of risks when hearing children aren't?

I am very very protective of deaf children even though I dont know them personally because I know what it is like to put under that kidn of risk. I was so F**** lucky I didnt end up with language delays nor deficits but my brother, unfortunately, wasnt so lucky.

That pisses me off. Do you understand?
 
CSign said:
My son doesn't have language deficits, quite on the contrary. There are countless others who grew up with SEE who also didn't have language deficits. They demonstrate a solid command of English, and with reading comprehension. It's there. In the study I provided...and no one is discussing it...
Click to expand...

no one is discussing with our experiences either... what's up with that? is it because we can dispute it and the study can't?
 
Banjo said:
It can be somewhat "effective" until of a certain age. After that, SEE won't be so effective due to the advanced linguistics of English.
Click to expand...

I've never really thought of this...but I think you might be right...now I'm going to be up all night pondering this statement...interesting.
 
CSign said:
My son doesn't have language deficits, quite on the contrary. There are countless others who grew up with SEE who also didn't have language deficits. They demonstrate a solid command of English, and with reading comprehension. It's there. In the study I provided...and no one is discussing it...
Click to expand...

I know a few deaf adults who agree with you. They affirm that SEE helped them with reading and writing. But what I find to be interesting is that they all use ASL now.
I think SEE has some advantages for literacy, but not for phoneme awareness. More for word order. The main issue I have with using it is that it is SO cumbersome...and it makes it easy to lose the train of thought.

I won't lie. I do cringe when I see SEE in action...like a long scratch across a chalkboard...
 
deafbajagal said:
I've never really thought of this...but I think you might be right...now I'm going to be up all night pondering this statement...interesting.
Click to expand...

I still disagree because since SEE is an incomplete broken language.... it only worked for children instead of adult because children did not have a solid foundation to begin with so it was just convenient and easier for adults to teach English to children.

I abhor this method and I consider it demeaning. It's not different from taking Spanish language and revising it into some incomplete language like Spanglish just to make it convenient and easier for teachers to teach them English.

NO! NO! NO! It's pure LAZINESS and ignorance. There's nothing for me to ponder on this. None of this warrants my "ah-ha... interesting!" moment.
 
Back
Top