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

[GrendelQ]

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.

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.

That's a direct quote, not a paraphrase. Marschark has historically been very much pro-mainstream, but in recent years, the past decade, he's been emphasizing the need to address each child's situation independently and open to the possibilities of oral, TC, and bi-bi schools.

ARE DEAF STUDENTS’ READING CHALLENGES REALLY ABOUT READING?.

It's an interesting article, and you've pulled tangential bits and pieces from it in your previous post, but I don't think you addressed the full context, the subject of the paper, itself:

In brief, researchers conducted a series of experiments to explore possible similarities in college-aged deaf students’ comprehension of sign language and print, with the ultimate goal of improving learning though both media.

Passages were presented to deaf (signing) students in print or American Sign Language and to hearing students in print or auditorially. Several measures of learning indicated that the deaf students learned as much or more from print as they did from sign language, but less than hearing students in both cases, and this also applied to Deaf of Deaf subjects.

The researchers summarized their findings by suggesting that although deaf college students frequently might believe that they understand sign better than print, the reverse may be true. At least in the context of STEM content (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), results from this and previous studies indicate that deaf students understand less of a signed lecture than they think they do, and may understand more—or at least learn more—from printed text than they think they do. The finding that learning via the reading of printed texts surpassed learning via sign language for deaf students had one exception: one of Marschark's experiments using real-time evanescent text-based instruction (a CART-like approach) provided positive results. More generally, the roots of learning difficulties for deaf students may lie in more general language comprehension processes than in what's been commonly assumed to be a reading issue, and that this difficulty is evident both in spoken and signed language approaches and might be improved through using multiple pathways.

 

[jillio]

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.

Gotcha. I certainly believe that to be the case, but will let MM answer on his own. If I were going to make a guess, I'd say he believes that same, however.

 

[GrendelQ]

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.

If you take a look at the research, even just this particular article, you'll see that -- to Marschark's admitted surprise -- even those Deaf of Deaf fluent ASL users in signed instruction environments are significantly underperforming.

 

[jillio]

That's a direct quote, not a paraphrase. Marschark has historically been very much pro-mainstream, but in recent years, the past decade, he's been emphasizing the need to address each child's situation independently and open to the possibilities of oral, TC, and bi-bi schools.

ARE DEAF STUDENTS’ READING CHALLENGES REALLY ABOUT READING?.

It's an interesting article, and you've pulled tangential bits and pieces from it in your previous post, but I don't think you addressed the full context, the subject of the paper, itself:

In brief, researchers conducted a series of experiments to explore possible similarities in college-aged deaf students’ comprehension of sign language and print, with the ultimate goal of improving learning though both media.

Passages were presented to deaf (signing) students in print or American Sign Language and to hearing students in print or auditorially. Several measures of learning indicated that the deaf students learned as much or more from print as they did from sign language, but less than hearing students in both cases, and this also applied to Deaf of Deaf subjects.

The researchers summarized their findings by suggesting that although deaf college students frequently might believe that they understand sign better than print, the reverse may be true. At least in the context of STEM content (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), results from this and previous studies indicate that deaf students understand less of a signed lecture than they think they do, and may understand more—or at least learn more—from printed text than they think they do. The finding that learning via the reading of printed texts surpassed learning via sign language for deaf students had one exception: one of Marschark's experiments using real-time evanescent text-based instruction (a CART-like approach) provided positive results. More generally, the roots of learning difficulties for deaf students may lie in more general language comprehension processes than in what's been commonly assumed to be a reading issue, and that this difficulty is evident both in spoken and signed language approaches and might be improved through using multiple pathways.

You are really very confused about Marshark and his research findings. But we have been through that before.

Are you quoting the research I posted? It supports what I have always stated, and what Marshark's research finds. You might want to go back several posts to where I posted several sections from that report. That would be post 269.

The one not addressing the full context would be you, as you are obviously distorting the findings as they relate to literacy and cognitive processing issues.

 

[jillio]

If you take a look at the research, even just this particular article, you'll see that -- to Marschark's admitted surprise -- even those Deaf of Deaf fluent ASL users in signed instruction environments are significantly underperforming.

Because they are addressing literacy from a language standpoint only and not from the standpoint of cognitive processing differences. Again, just as I have been saying all along. Again, you are taking sections out of context in an attempt to manipulate the meaning of the findings.

Am I going to have to post more research finding a strong positive correlation between signing and reading skills? I've got it.

 

[GrendelQ]

You are really very confused about Marshark and his research findings. But we have been through that before.

Are you quoting the research I posted? It supports what I have always stated, and what Marshark's research finds.

That quote is from the same paper you posted about, pg 359. You gave your takeaways of it earlier, and I've summarized the paper in my previous post, including a link to a PDF of the paper itself. That paragraph on bilingual education I included was verbatim from Marschark's paper. Take a look yourself. It directly conflicts with the approach my family is committed to, so obviously I'm not making it up to support my position, as it does quite the opposite.

 

[CSign]

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- were you taught butter+fly as the sign for butterfly? If so, it sounds like you were exposed to Seeing Essential English (SEE I) which was somewhat counterproductive.

Nowadays, SEE refers to Signing Exact English which is very different from Seeing Essential English. The latter is not even really used anymore.

The sign for "butterfly" in SEE is the same sign as in ASL.

 

[Mountain Man]

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.

It depends on what you mean by "support SEE". SEE is a tool for teaching and learning English for those who are already fluent in sign language. It should not be used as a substitute for language.

 

[jillio]

That quote is from the same paper you posted about, pg 359. You gave your takeaways of it earlier, and I've summarized the paper in my previous post, including a link to a PDF of the paper itself. That paragraph on bilingual education I included was verbatim from Marschark's paper. Take a look yourself. It directly conflicts with the approach my family is committed to, so obviously I'm not making it up to support my position, as it does quite the opposite.

Exactly. And you took it out of context in an attempt to manipulate the meaning to agreement with you. No it does not conflict with the approach of bi-bi. That is the mistake you are making in your interpretation of what the research findings are saying.

You need to take a course or two in research methodologies, because your summarization are completely missing the mark.

 

[GrendelQ]

Because they are addressing literacy from a language standpoint only and not from the standpoint of cognitive processing differences. Again, just as I have been saying all along. Again, you are taking sections out of context in an attempt to manipulate the meaning of the findings.

Am I going to have to post more research finding a strong positive correlation between signing and reading skills? I've got it.

Apparently, yes, because you've just posted a paper saying that using ASL was worse than printed English in teaching deaf students as your argument.

 

[jillio]

Deafskeptic- were you taught butter+fly as the sign for butterfly? If so, it sounds like you were exposed to Seeing Essential English (SEE I) which was somewhat counterproductive.

Nowadays, SEE refers to Signing Exact English which is very different from Seeing Essential English. The latter is not even really used anymore.

The sign for "butterfly" in SEE is the same sign as in ASL.

Neither SEE I nor SEE II were ever intended as communication methods or for lanaguage acquisition. They were intended as teaching tools specific to English grammar.

 

[jillio]

Apparently, yes, because you've just posted a paper saying that using ASL was worse than printed English in teaching deaf students as your argument.

That isn't what it says at all. You really are off the mark here. I don't know if you are really having that much difficulty understanding the research findings or if you are purposely attempting to commit intellectual dishonesty. I suspect, after having dealt with you in the past, that it is the second. Very, very manipulative and dishonest.

Tell me: what would Marshark do with his own deaf child? He has made many statements regarding what his decision would be.

 

[CSign]

Neither SEE I nor SEE II were ever intended as communication methods or for lanaguage acquisition. They were intended as teaching tools specific to English grammar.

Yes, you've said that before.

 

[jillio]

Yes, you've said that before.

Because it is fact. So why do you use it as it was not intended?

 

[Mountain Man]

If you take a look at the research, even just this particular article, you'll see that -- to Marschark's admitted surprise -- even those Deaf of Deaf fluent ASL users in signed instruction environments are significantly underperforming.

What do you mean by "underperforming"? If you mean "as users of spoken language" then I think the criteria to declare that someone is "underperforming" needs to be broadened.

To put it simply, language development =/= learning to read and write English

 

[CSign]

Because it is fact. So why do you use it as it was not intended?

Jillio- it is clear you could care less about me and my son. Why do you care how we use it?

Also, those involved in the creation of SEE would disagree with you.

 

[GrendelQ]

What do you mean by "underperforming"? If you mean "as users of spoken language" then I think the criteria to declare that someone is "underperforming" needs to be broadened.

To put it simply, language development =/= learning to read and write English

No, I'm referring to fluent users of ASL, as learners of subject area material taught in ASL in a college setting, no spoken English involved as measure or method. Take a look at the article under discussion.

 

[Jiro]

Deafskeptic- were you taught butter+fly as the sign for butterfly? If so, it sounds like you were exposed to Seeing Essential English (SEE I) which was somewhat counterproductive.

Nowadays, SEE refers to Signing Exact English which is very different from Seeing Essential English. The latter is not even really used anymore.

The sign for "butterfly" in SEE is the same sign as in ASL.

Yes, you've said that before.

 

[Jiro]

Jillio- it is clear you could care less about me and my son. Why do you care how we use it?

Also, those involved in the creation of SEE would disagree with you.

and why do you care to continue this farce?

 

[jillio]

What do you mean by "underperforming"? If you mean "as users of spoken language" then I think the criteria to declare that someone is "underperforming" needs to be broadened.

To put it simply, language development =/= learning to read and write English

The problem here is that the poster is attempting to twist the findings so that she can use the research to support whichever side she is arguing. That is dependent upon the day and her mood, evidently.

What Marshark's research is saying is that oral deaf have the poorest reading outcomes, those who are fluent in ASL have better outcomes, but could be improved by using reading strategies that focus not on language concerns, but cognitive processing concerns specific to the deaf. The problems indicated by the inability to gain full information from both through the air communication (sign or speech) and the reading comprehension deficits both indicate that the problem does not lie with language in literacy, but with the differences in cognitive processing between deaf and hearing readers.