Survey of Bi-Bi programs - Empirical Article

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
Certainly never said all. I believe the estimates are around 40% for minorities. I am just trying to put thing in perspective. I know that it is horrible that Deaf children are undereducated, but the truth is that all students are!
Click to expand...

Exactly!! :thumb:
 
jillio said:
Why do you continue to insist on using the word "all" when we are talking about what works for the "majority"? No one disagrees that one approach will not work for all, just as one approach will not work for all hearing children, all Down's Syndrome children, all Autistic chidren, all LD children, and all cognitively impaired children. However, there are methods that work for the majority.
Click to expand...

“This critical examination of some of the most frequent claims made by supporters of bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students questions the viability of these claims as sufficient foundation and basis for justifying the pedagogical argument.
Click to expand...

"if this approach to educating deaf children is to be seen as appropriate for the larger numbers of students, its tenets and theoretical foundations must be able to withstand close examination, and its proponents cannot conveniently ignore the current theory, knowledge, and research data that do not fit the model.”

Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy education for deaf students: considering the claims -- Mayer and Akamatsu 4 (1): 1 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Click to expand...

Why do you think there is a call for further research?
 
rockdrummer said:
Why do you think there is a call for further research?
Click to expand...

To verify methodology, not philosophy. Hence, top down processing teaching methods for literacy, or bottom up processing teaching methods for literacy.

BTW...there is always a call for more research in the educational arena.

Now, how about if you answer the previous questions? The most recent ones that haven't been answered are located in posts #680 and 684.
 
rockdrummer said:
Why do you think there is a call for further research?
Click to expand...

Somehow..... this journal reeks of oralists or whacked advocates. Here's another thing about sources. Just because it's from Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education doesn't mean it has any muscle. As far as I'm concerned - they probably graduated from college with C-average or they could be paid by C.I. companies :dunno:

That's purely why I love Peer-Review Scholarly Sources.
 
Daredevel7 said:
OOoOOooo Touche!

RD, just to clarify, are you opposed to the application of a standard policy (since you are for OSDFA*) or just opposed to using BiBi as a standard BECAUSE it has not been proved to be effective for the majority yet?

*I have taken the liberty to abbreviate "One size doesn't fit all" since I am sure people are getting tired of writing/reading it.
Click to expand...
I am not opposed to anything that works. What I am opposed to is people claiming what is best for the majority when there is not enough research and studies to prove those claims. I am not against a bibi model or standardized policies as long as they are proven and accepted by professional standards.
 
Jiro said:
Somehow..... this journal reeks of oralists or whacked advocates. Here's another thing about sources. Just because it's from Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education doesn't mean it has any muscle. As far as I'm concerned - they probably graduated from college with C-average or they could be paid by C.I. companies :dunno:

That's purely why I love Peer-Review Scholarly Sources.
Click to expand...
Oh please... you just lost all credibility with me sir. You can't honestly expect to be taken seriously after those comments.
 
rockdrummer said:
I am not opposed to anything that works. What I am opposed to is people claiming what is best for the majority when there is not enough research and studies to prove those claims. I am not against a bibi model or standardized policies as long as they are proven and accepted by professional standards.
Click to expand...

And since BIBI is new in application, it will not be proven in this generation..

And I mean its modern practice, not historical teaching which is not really the BIBI program of today.
 
jillio said:
To verify methodology, not philosophy. Hence, top down processing teaching methods for literacy, or bottom up processing teaching methods for literacy.

BTW...there is always a call for more research in the educational arena.

Now, how about if you answer the previous questions? The most recent ones that haven't been answered are located in posts #680 and 684.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to get back to you. I have responded to what feels like 100 posts today. I am tired and going to bed.
 
rockdrummer said:
I am not opposed to anything that works. What I am opposed to is people claiming what is best for the majority when there is not enough research and studies to prove those claims. I am not against a bibi model or standardized policies as long as they are proven and accepted by professional standards.
Click to expand...

How much more proof do you need? There have been pages and pages of posts quoting research that support just that. The posts supporting a bi-bi environment for the benefit of the majority far outnumber the research posted that doesn't. We have the literacy rates that indicate the very, very low reading and language comprehension of deaf students. For the last 30 years, TC has been the chosen program of instruction. That has all been supported as well. It is obvious that TC has not worked. It is obvious that oral only works only for a very select few. Research shows that bi-bi addresses all the needs of the majority of deaf students. You have been provided with pages of such. What more do you need to see?

And, if you are looking for proof you certainly won't find it in the research, or in practical application. All that either provide is support.
 
Bottesini said:
And since BIBI is new in application, it will not be proven in this generation..

And I mean its modern practice, not historical teaching which is not really the BIBI program of today.
Click to expand...

So, in the meantime, do we continue to use what has been shown definitively not to work for the majority even though we have research showing the promise and the good results obtained from bi-bi to date?
 
rockdrummer said:
Oh please... you just lost all credibility with me sir. You can't honestly expect to be taken seriously after those comments.
Click to expand...

Oh? Then why are you defending and questioning us with these sources as your muscle? Sounds like you were being serious in disputing the standardized models so I thought I'd returned with the same seriousness. :dunno:

Do you mean to tell me that all the sources you provided are useless?
 
jillio said:
So, in the meantime, do we continue to use what has been shown definitively not to work for the majority even though we have research showing the promise and the good results obtained from bi-bi to date?
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion. I think BIBI is promising. I would have liked to have experienced it.
 
rockdrummer said:
I am not opposed to anything that works. What I am opposed to is people claiming what is best for the majority when there is not enough research and studies to prove those claims. I am not against a bibi model or standardized policies as long as they are proven and accepted by professional standards.
Click to expand...

Likewise same here.
 
rockdrummer said:
I'm going to have to get back to you. I have responded to what feels like 100 posts today. I am tired and going to bed.
Click to expand...

:wave: nite. I think I will ZzZzZz too. good debate, dude. :cool2: Wish McCain-Obama and Palin-Biden Debates were same... :dunno:
 
rockdrummer said:
I am not opposed to anything that works. What I am opposed to is people claiming what is best for the majority when there is not enough research and studies to prove those claims. I am not against a bibi model or standardized policies as long as they are proven and accepted by professional standards.
Click to expand...

That's correct! ;)

It's the same as not all deaf people have the same experience with lipreading. Apparently, some really do seem to understand well enough to feel moderately comfortable with it, and on the other hand some do not. It all depends on the individual, that's why I believe "One size doesn't fit all"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top