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

[Mountain Man]

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.

What? SEE was created with the express purpose of teaching Deaf children to read and write. It was never intended to be a substitute for sign language.

And I'm certain that Jillio holds no ill will towards you or your family. She is simply correcting your false assertion that SEE is a language.

 

[jillio]

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.

I don't see them disagreeing. They fully admit that it was not intended as a communication method.

I don't care how you use it. I care that you talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. You can't have it both ways. Your inconsistencies and your inability to state your position and stick to it speaks volumes for your credibility on these topics.

 

[jillio]

What? SEE was created with the express purpose of teaching Deaf children to read and write. It was never intended to be a substitute for sign language.

And I'm certain that Jillio holds no ill will towards you or your family. She is simply correcting your false assertion that SEE is a language.

Thank you. This is it in a nutshell. However, some are not inclined to accept correction, and much prefer to continue on with their erroneous beliefs. Sad, that.

 

[jillio]

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.

You are still misinterpreting the results of that research and Marshark's findings.:roll:

 

[GrendelQ]

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.

Seriously? You spent all that time cherry picking sentences to build your own narrative that you actually missed the whole point of the paper? Read it again. And then read the authors' conclusions and summary within the article itself, if you don't like what I posted.

As to what Marschark would do with his own deaf child? He actually addresses that specifically in an interview with Hands & Voices: looks like he'd provide cochlear implants, ASL as a primary language, and use SEE as a bridge to reading.

So, now that I've seen the evidence, I would seriously consider a cochlear implant for my child, even if, at the same time, I would push for the acquisition of ASL as a first language and use some English-based signing as a bridge to English print. At the same time, I used to be a radical advocate of mainstream education for young deaf children. Having done the research that I have over the past 12 years since I came to NTID, my view on that has changed as well. I believe it is now clear that deaf children do not learn the same way as hearing children, and education in a mainstream classroom by a hearing teacher with material structured (created and delivered) in a form intended for hearing students seems unlikely to optimize learning and match the strengths and needs of deaf children. Although I might like to change a lot about the way many schools for the deaf work, my own pendulum has now swung back to programs that take into account what we know about how deaf children learn, modifying instruction and instructional materials to match the way they think. I honestly believe that for many, if not most deaf children, this would be a way to allow them to reach their full potential. Yet, I realize that the social/economic/legislative pendulum is not likely to swing back this way in the near future.

 

[Mountain Man]

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.

Now what exactly are you implying here? That spoken English is an intellectually superior form of communication?

 

[jillio]

and why do you care to continue this farce?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

[jillio]

Seriously? You spent all that time cherry picking sentences to build your own narrative that you actually missed the whole point of the paper? Read it again. And then read the authors' conclusions and summary within the article itself, if you don't like what I posted.

As to what Marschark would do with his own deaf child? He actually addresses that specifically in an interview with Hands & Voices: looks like he'd provide cochlear implants, ASL as a primary language, and use SEE as a bridge to reading.

I'll tell you what. When you have learned how to read and interpret research findings, instead of simply relying on a few passages in one select section I'll discuss findings with you. You obviously have not reached that point yet, judging from your consistent misinterpretations.

I don't need to read it again. Marshark's findings are very clear to anyone that has the capability of evaluating and interpreting research. He is plainly saying that addressing literacy from the standpoint of language is not the answer to increased literacy in deaf students. Yet you continue to approach it from just that perpsective. He very plainly states that we need to stop focusing on the language aspects and concentrate on addressing the cognitive processing issues because the language based literacy interventions are not resulting in improvement in literacy scores.

 

[Daredevel7]

I read all of "Are deaf students' reading challenges really about reading?" and.....
seems like it raises more questions than it answers, anyway.

I did learn something interesting. I always thought deaf children of deaf parents were on par with hearing counterparts in terms of reading. Will read this next: Marschark, M., & Wauters, L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students.

 

[jillio]

I read all of "Are deaf students' reading challenges really about reading?" and.....
seems like it raises more questions than it answers, anyway.

I did learn something interesting. I always thought deaf children of deaf parents were on par with hearing counterparts in terms of reading. Will read this next: Marschark, M., & Wauters, L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students.

They come closer to being on par than any other subgroup. However, Marshark is suggesting, as are other researchers, that the fact that they aren't suppoprts that language is not the issue in literacy; but rather, cognitive processing differences in deaf students.

 

[Daredevel7]

They come closer to being on par than any other subgroup. However, Marshark is suggesting, as are other researchers, that the fact that they aren't suppoprts that language is not the issue in literacy; but rather, cognitive processing differences in deaf students.

But that's my point. Sort of like "Well, we tried to prove that it is this, but it's not. So we think it is that."

What was that quote about the lightbulb...?

 

[GrendelQ]

Now what exactly are you implying here? That spoken English is an intellectually superior form of communication?

no, I'm not at all referring to spoken language as being superior ... In fact, as I stated in an earlier post, the authors found that spoken and signed languages were both providing subpar results. Why don't you take a look at the paper and see the full details the experiment in discussion before hairtrigger reaction.

 

[jillio]

I read all of "Are deaf students' reading challenges really about reading?" and.....
seems like it raises more questions than it answers, anyway.

I did learn something interesting. I always thought deaf children of deaf parents were on par with hearing counterparts in terms of reading. Will read this next: Marschark, M., & Wauters, L. (2008). Language comprehension and learning by deaf students.

I think you will find all of Marshark's research interesting. But there are many other researchers that have valid findings, as well. It really just depends on measurements and operational definitions. That is why it is so hard to compare different research designs and their findings. But then, I'm sure you already know that.

 

[jillio]

no, I'm not at all referring to spoken language as being superior ... In fact, as I stated in an earlier post, the authors found that spoken and signed languages were both providing subpar results. Why don't you take a look at the paper and see the full details the experiment in discussion before hairtrigger reaction.

Yeah. So what it the solution? Forget the language based approaches and start focusing on the cognitive processing differences in the deaf.

 

[jillio]

But that's my point. Sort of like "Well, we tried to prove that it is this, but it's not. So we think it is that."

What was that quote about the lightbulb...?

Problem with research. You have to support all of the null hypotheses before you can find support for the hypothesis.

 

[Mountain Man]

In fact, as I stated in an earlier post, the authors found that spoken and signed languages were both providing subpar results.

Why do you suppose that is, and what do you think we should be doing about it?

 

[jillio]

Here are some findings of additional research that indicates that fluency in sign has an impact at the lexical and text levels only, and that the cognitive processing comes into play when one advances past the lexical and text levels of literacy. Basically supports what I posted from the Marshark research.

The empirical data, quite interestingly, do show that there is a strong and positive relationship between signing and reading skills (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000; Hoffmeister, 2000; Mann, 2006; Padden & Ramsey, 2000; Parisot, Dubuisson, Lelievre, Vercaingne- Menard, & Villeneuve, 2005; Prinz, 2002; Strong & Prinz, 1997, 2000). Prinz, 1997, 2000). For instance, Strong and Prinz studied the relationship between the signing skills and the reading skills of a group of 155 deaf children between 8 and 15 years old. They found a strong correlation between signing skills and reading skills, even after age and nonverbal intelligence were partialled out. In general, deaf children with good signing skills were also the better readers.

Chamberlain (2001) administered a story comprehension task in ASL and in written English to 35 adults. Approximately half the adults performed at a near native level on the ASL story comprehension task. Chamberlain found that most of the adults with a high level of proficiency in ASL read at 8th grade level or above. In contrast, most of the adults who had a low level of proficiency in ASL read at 4th grade level or below. In other words, the relationship between ASL and reading skills may also be localized at the level of text structure.

Hermans, D., et.al. (2008). The relationship between the reading and signing skills of deaf children in bilingual educational programs. Oxford Press Publishing.

 

[GrendelQ]

I'll tell you what. When you have learned how to read and interpret research findings, instead of simply relying on a few passages in one select section I'll discuss findings with you. You obviously have not reached that point yet, judging from your consistent misinterpretations.

I don't need to read it again. Marshark's findings are very clear to anyone that has the capability of evaluating and interpreting research. He is plainly saying that addressing literacy from the standpoint of language is not the answer to increased literacy in deaf students. Yet you continue to approach it from just that perpsective. He very plainly states that we need to stop focusing on the language aspects and concentrate on addressing the cognitive processing issues because the language based literacy interventions are not resulting in improvement in literacy scores.

Hey, you are the one who posted this particular research paper concluding that even the most fluent ASL deaf students learn significantly better via printed text than signed instruction, and yet even what they learn via printed text is relatively poor compared to hearing students, necessitating some alternative or combination methods for communicating to be determined or developed. As Daredevel says, it sure raises a lot more questions and provides little in the way of definitive answers. I don't know what you thought it would prove or support, but it's certainly not helping anything you've been pushing. I suppose you either figured that if you left off a link everybody would take your word for the meaning of this paper, rather than reading it directly, or you yourself never read through the piece.

And you asked what Marschark would do with his own deaf child: he's answered that pretty explicitly, and just because it's not what you expect, apparently, don't blame my interpretation -- those are his words.

 

[jillio]

Hey, you are the one who posted this particular research paper concluding that even the most fluent ASL deaf students learn significantly better via printed text than signed instruction, and yet even what they learn via printed text is relatively poor compared to hearing students, necessitating some alternative or combination methods for communicating to be determined or developed. As Daredevel says, it sure raises a lot more questions and provides little in the way of definitive answers. I don't know what you thought it would prove or support, but it's certainly not helping anything you've been pushing. I suppose you either figured that if you left off a link everybody would take your word for the meaning of this paper, rather than reading it directly, or you yourself never read through the piece.

And you asked what Marschark would do with his own deaf child: he's answered that pretty explicitly, and just because it's not what you expect, apparently, don't blame my interpretation -- those are his words.

Hey, you are the one that keeps misinterpreting it. I'm not responsible for your failure to comprehend the research findings. You are not even allowing for the different levels of literacy and the cognitive implications of each in your interpretation. And I don't mean grade level reading scores when I discuss different levels of literacy.

 

[GrendelQ]

Why do you suppose that is, and what do you think we should be doing about it?

Both great questions. I don't know. And for my daughter, we're making choices that we think will work against what this research shows, in her case. Not claiming they will work for your child, or anyone else's, but we're openly sharing the results of what we find, good or bad. So far, astonishingly great.