What approach should be used in the educational setting for deaf education?

I think deaf education programs should use the

  • oral only approach

    Votes: 3 5.0%

  • sign language only approach

    Votes: 7 11.7%

  • oral and signing approach

    Votes: 23 38.3%

  • use whatever methods work for the child

    Votes: 26 43.3%

  • ????? cuz I really do not know what's best.

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Total voters
    60
I have yet to meet an hh kid or adult that does not use visual cues to some extent to matter how oral they are. Even those who are AD and use HA will rely on visual cues.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Visual processing is a STRENGH for virtually ALL dhh people. Certainly, AD/late deafened folks aren't as visually attuned to the world, as well as those who have always been dhh......but still.......older people can and do adapt. Have you heard about Auditory-Verbal? OMG........talk about a philosophy that is really hardcore "trying to make deaf and hoh kids exactly like hearing people"........UGH! They even employ a "cue" that prevents speechreading?!?!? Like auditory verbal therapy isn't that bad, and there are some good points to that philosophy, but overall it can be very extremely hearing chaunavistic.
sr171soars, I've heard variations of "oh if we give them a full toolbox, most kids will gravitate to the easier tool to use", for ages. But I think that's extremely silly. The deabte nowadays is about which language should be a dhh kid's FIRST language.
Besides, it's exactly like the English As a Second Language debate. Some kids become very fluent in English, others have significent difficulties with it. Research has indicated that ASL users aren't suffering from LD style processing issues. They simply approach English as a second language.
Besides, the majority of "oral" deaf kids STILL have significent reading and expressive writing problems, even thou most of them aren't exposed to Sign!
I think the majority of dhh kids should get educational exposure to Sign......b/c it really can help with a STRENGH, that is visual processing!
 
deafdyke said:
Agreed! Visual processing is a STRENGH for virtually ALL dhh people. Certainly, AD/late deafened folks aren't as visually attuned to the world, as well as those who have always been dhh......but still.......older people can and do adapt. Have you heard about Auditory-Verbal? OMG........talk about a philosophy that is really hardcore "trying to make deaf and hoh kids exactly like hearing people"........UGH! They even employ a "cue" that prevents speechreading?!?!? Like auditory verbal therapy isn't that bad, and there are some good points to that philosophy, but overall it can be very extremely hearing chaunavistic.
sr171soars, I've heard variations of "oh if we give them a full toolbox, most kids will gravitate to the easier tool to use", for ages. But I think that's extremely silly. The deabte nowadays is about which language should be a dhh kid's FIRST language.
Besides, it's exactly like the English As a Second Language debate. Some kids become very fluent in English, others have significent difficulties with it. Research has indicated that ASL users aren't suffering from LD style processing issues. They simply approach English as a second language.
Besides, the majority of "oral" deaf kids STILL have significent reading and expressive writing problems, even thou most of them aren't exposed to Sign!
I think the majority of dhh kids should get educational exposure to Sign......b/c it really can help with a STRENGH, that is visual processing!
Click to expand...

I agree!

Another ADer mentioned in another thread that when taught using both approaches, deaf/hoh children will take the easy way out meaning gravitate towards ASL. Well, iam gonna be rude here so pls forgive me...DUH! Of course they are going to cuz language development should be natural and easy. Why make the language development process for deaf/hoh children more difficult than necessary?

I mean think about it..hearing kids don't have to "work" to acquire their natural language. Why should deaf/hoh have to work harder when denied a visual language because the so called specialistsfirmly believe that's the only way they can function normally?

Learning language thru the oral approach only is not easy...do hearing kids without any cognitive processing disabilities spend hours in sppech therapy so they can aquire language? No..so sign language is more natural.

Developing speech, lipreading or auditory skills should be considered as aquiring a 2nd language or as a skill to communicate with the hearing world. Important thing is that the children become proficent in written language too.
 
It depends on the Parents and Teachers

I believe it depends on the people teaching the deaf individual. All children deaf or hearing should be taught to interact in verbal and sign language.

The problem that exists is that parents are responsible for teaching their child until he/she is 4 or 5. Whether oralism or sign language is the best choice depends on the parents.

No person can teach something they don't know. If parents have poor English skills they will not be able to teach good English to their child unless they learn good English first. If parents have poor or no ASL skills they can't teach them unless they learn them first.

No parent knows whether their child will be hearing or deaf before birth. If a method of communication is not found by age 5, that child is already starting 5 years behind other children.

Once they get to the class room it matters whether teachers will respect the needs of deaf students for lipreading or if it is possible/necessary to have other means of taking the classes.

Either way for gaining general knowledge the same language and emphasis needs to be enforced by the parents. If Oral and signing both are taught both grammars vocabularies and fluencies must be pushed both at school and home. If Oral only it needs to be pushed both at school and home with no deviation. If ASL only is used it needs to be used propperly at school and home with no deviation. For ASL only to flourish further it needs a representative written form.

Until hearing people are convinced to teach Sign Language in school as a regular required class, there won't be a group of parents that can teach good sign language from birth allowing for earlier communication and more advanced kids both hearing and deaf. If that world comes more oportunities will be open to deaf adults with no language barrier present.

metamantis
 
Well I really don't feel that I'm qualified to vote and there are probably many others that are not either but for the sake of my opinion, I voted for whatever works for the child. I see post here that say do ASL and oral but that assumes the child is benefiting from one of those. What if the child doesn't benefit. Also, oral and signing are not the only methods out there. I think the educators should whatever means are necessary to educate the child.
 
shel90 said:
I agree!

Another ADer mentioned in another thread that when taught using both approaches, deaf/hoh children will take the easy way out meaning gravitate towards ASL. Well, iam gonna be rude here so pls forgive me...DUH! Of course they are going to cuz language development should be natural and easy. Why make the language development process for deaf/hoh children more difficult than necessary?

I mean think about it..hearing kids don't have to "work" to acquire their natural language. Why should deaf/hoh have to work harder when denied a visual language because the so called specialistsfirmly believe that's the only way they can function normally?

Learning language thru the oral approach only is not easy...do hearing kids without any cognitive processing disabilities spend hours in sppech therapy so they can aquire language? No..so sign language is more natural.

Developing speech, lipreading or auditory skills should be considered as aquiring a 2nd language or as a skill to communicate with the hearing world. Important thing is that the children become proficent in written language too.
Click to expand...

I can agree for most deaf kids that is probably best way. For those like me, it would have never let me develop my speech and hearing/listening abilities I have today. The harder route paid in spades but I also know I'm in the minority. There are some kids that can do the same thing I did but maybe we will never know who they are...and that what saddens me. I guess it is better the greatest good the greatest number.
 
sr171soars, on the other hand, maybe TC programs could improve, in that area if really good speech therapists joined the TC methodology. Unfortunatly a lot of the gifted/really good speech therapists are attracted to private schools/practices. The TC programs in turn, get the semi good therapists....like not as bad as public school ones.........but still not as good as the private school ones. Besides, I think its fairly rare for dhh kids to develop really sophisticated spoken language. The gross majority of oral kids, could still significently benifit from exposure to Sign, since it would be capitalizing on a strengh.....visual processing!
 
All valid points that re-enforce the idea that everyone is gonna benefit from different methods. That's why I said that whatever works should be what is persued. The answer to the threads question is that there is no single "best" approach. What is works for one may not work for others.
 
**nodding agreement** I am very strengths based in my philosophy. I believe that anytime you capitalize on a natural strength (like a deaf child being visually based) you simply provide another tool to deal with the weakness (auditory processing). Why in the world does it make sense to try and improve oral skills using a weakness when the strength is there and available to the child?
 
Agreed! I mean sheesh..........how can a dhh kid develop good self esteem if they're always being nagged about modulation, volume etc etc? Even today I still am HUGELY self conscious about my voice.............and oral skills do not really equalize dhh kids too much. Gives them an additional skill yeah........but very few of them will be able to totally assimulate in the hearing world.
 
I voted both oral and signing... as for me.. my parents were deaf.. so signing was my first langauge.... when I attended to the Deaf school I learned to speak....

Again.. deaf children tends to sign more with other deaf children because they feel more comfortable signing...
 
I think alot of oralist (sp?) deaf people have trouble communicating with other oralist deafs. Been there, done that. We basically just gave up on each other.
 
metamantis said:
I believe it depends on the people teaching the deaf individual. All children deaf or hearing should be taught to interact in verbal and sign language.

The problem that exists is that parents are responsible for teaching their child until he/she is 4 or 5. Whether oralism or sign language is the best choice depends on the parents.

No person can teach something they don't know. If parents have poor English skills they will not be able to teach good English to their child unless they learn good English first. If parents have poor or no ASL skills they can't teach them unless they learn them first.

No parent knows whether their child will be hearing or deaf before birth. If a method of communication is not found by age 5, that child is already starting 5 years behind other children.

Once they get to the class room it matters whether teachers will respect the needs of deaf students for lipreading or if it is possible/necessary to have other means of taking the classes.

Either way for gaining general knowledge the same language and emphasis needs to be enforced by the parents. If Oral and signing both are taught both grammars vocabularies and fluencies must be pushed both at school and home. If Oral only it needs to be pushed both at school and home with no deviation. If ASL only is used it needs to be used propperly at school and home with no deviation. For ASL only to flourish further it needs a representative written form.

Until hearing people are convinced to teach Sign Language in school as a regular required class, there won't be a group of parents that can teach good sign language from birth allowing for earlier communication and more advanced kids both hearing and deaf. If that world comes more oportunities will be open to deaf adults with no language barrier present.

metamantis
Click to expand...

Actually, you make some very good points. But there have been a couple of studies done on deaf children learning sign from hearing parents or late learning signers. The deaf child actually surpasses the fluency of his models, making fewer errors in production. Beign very visual in nature, he will have an intuitive feel for syntax and grammar, and will make adjustments so what he receives as input will be rearranged to make the most sense from a visual perspective.
 
I really think it depends on the child. I think starting with both oralism and signing is best. If it seems that the child is better than one at the other then concentrate on that technique more. I am a Hearing ASL student and from what I understand ASL comes so much more naturally to a Deaf person than signing. So, why drill something into a kids head that is not natural to them?
 
ASL is signing. i think you meant speaking LOL. And it depends on the age of the child when they became deaf.. some children become deaf at a later age, and therefore already have the knowledge of how speech works.. Like me. Others are born deaf and have no knowledge of how speech works. So I think the age you are when you became deaf does play a major role as well.
 
nightcrickets said:
I think alot of oralist (sp?) deaf people have trouble communicating with other oralist deafs. Been there, done that. We basically just gave up on each other.
Click to expand...

Yea, that happened to me with other oral deaf people while growing up. We couldnt really understand each other.

Hey, speaking of oral deaf people, I visited my friend in PA and her friend (she is HOH but is fluent in ASL) has a sister who is profoundly deaf but doesnt know ASL. Anyways, I finally got to meet the sister and since I got used to signing with other deaf people, it was very awkward for me to revert back to being oral with her knowing that she is deaf. Unconsciously, I kept signing to her and she would tell me that she doesnt understand me at all and I would say ..;ooopss and start using my speech with her and then she would start using hers with me but I couldnt really understand her. It was apparent she was frustrated. I felt bad but my lipreading skills have always been lousy growing up. :dunno:
 
metamantis said:
I believe it depends on the people teaching the deaf individual. All children deaf or hearing should be taught to interact in verbal and sign language.

The problem that exists is that parents are responsible for teaching their child until he/she is 4 or 5. Whether oralism or sign language is the best choice depends on the parents.

No person can teach something they don't know. If parents have poor English skills they will not be able to teach good English to their child unless they learn good English first. If parents have poor or no ASL skills they can't teach them unless they learn them first.

No parent knows whether their child will be hearing or deaf before birth. If a method of communication is not found by age 5, that child is already starting 5 years behind other children.

Once they get to the class room it matters whether teachers will respect the needs of deaf students for lipreading or if it is possible/necessary to have other means of taking the classes.

Either way for gaining general knowledge the same language and emphasis needs to be enforced by the parents. If Oral and signing both are taught both grammars vocabularies and fluencies must be pushed both at school and home. If Oral only it needs to be pushed both at school and home with no deviation. If ASL only is used it needs to be used propperly at school and home with no deviation. For ASL only to flourish further it needs a representative written form. People have tried to put ASL in written form..it failed cuz ASL is a visual language that involves facial expressions and movements. Cant put that on paper.

Until hearing people are convinced to teach Sign Language in school as a regular required class, there won't be a group of parents that can teach good sign language from birth allowing for earlier communication and more advanced kids both hearing and deaf. If that world comes more oportunities will be open to deaf adults with no language barrier present.

metamantis
Click to expand...


Problem is that parents who push for oral only approaches is that in many cases, the child is unable to develop language through the oral-only method and then will be in need for sign language later on. Then, the parents have the choice of learning ASL or not. Deafdyke stated in other threads that these days more parents are open to signing than 30 years ago. However, there are still numerous parents that havent learned signing due to many factors such as no time, no motivation, problems at home, or working too much.

I am the perfect example coming from a family that had one deaf (me) who grew up with the oral-only approach, never learning sign and one deaf (my brother) who didnt do well in the oral-only approach and grew up at a deaf school using ASL has his primary language. My parents never learned sign language which was unfortunate for my brother and learning just recently, for me too cuz I missed out a lot on what they were conversing in with each other.
 
shel90 said:
Yea, that happened to me with other oral deaf people while growing up. We couldnt really understand each other.

Hey, speaking of oral deaf people, I visited my friend in PA and her friend (she is HOH but is fluent in ASL) has a sister who is profoundly deaf but doesnt know ASL. Anyways, I finally got to meet the sister and since I got used to signing with other deaf people, it was very awkward for me to revert back to being oral with her knowing that she is deaf. Unconsciously, I kept signing to her and she would tell me that she doesnt understand me at all and I would say ..;ooopss and start using my speech with her and then she would start using hers with me but I couldnt really understand her. It was apparent she was frustrated. I felt bad but my lipreading skills have always been lousy growing up. :dunno:
Click to expand...


My older sister and I are both severe HOH and oralist. We avoid each other because we have a hard time understanding each other especially neither of our speech is that clear enough to read lips. The only time we actually talk is when we use Yahoo! chat. She recently learned ASL, and wants me to use ASL. I told her that I will soon when I have the time to do it. Right now my son is young and spend half day at school (meaning I pick him up real early).
 
not oralist

When I posted before I was not meaning an oral approach; I was thinking Written English.
I understand that lipreading is not the same as hearing.

Having done more research I take back my comment on ability to be fluent in ASL. As a language ASL appears to be a form of best common practices for a signed language as opposed to having as many sets of strict rules as English.

I still think it is very important that the child and parent be able to be actively involved with communication be it written/typed English or sign language.

metamantis
 
I vote sign only as I associate oralism with being prevented from using sign language.

I think that written language is very important too. Especially if you become deafblind. Most communication methods for the deafblind are dependant on the ability to read. Some deaf people who are brought up with poor education have a lot of problems when they lose their sight if they are only semi literate.
 
Back
Top