shel90

Your theory is totally wrong. I don't need to repeat myself on how it works in the deaf schools. I am tireed of people putting the blame on us teachers and deaf schools..with that attitude from the public, less and less people r motivated to teach deaf students. Parents and the students' motivations also play a role so pls do not put all the blame on teachers and the deaf school.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

jillio

That is a perfect example of just what is wrong in the education of deaf children. DEAF CHILDREN ARE NOT HEARING CHILDREN ANDTHEY DO NOT COGNITIVELY PROCESS INFORMATION IN THE SAME WAY THAT HEARING CHILDREN DO.

webexplorer

I am not aware of your situation. It is my theory, and I respect your criticism. My favorite teacher explained it to me that all teachers must obey the school policy. They wanted to do their way to teach them instead of the policy, but they cannot do that so they are stuck with it.

Do you ever want to do your way to teach them? I think that it would be great, but it is risky if they found out about you. You would lose your job. I do not mean that the teachers are wrong, and they have to do their job. That's all.

Let's me to tell you a quick story. My best deaf friend mainstreamed in a hearing school when he was a kid. He was transferred to a deaf private school when he was 16. He enjoyed meeting with deaf students there. He had an excellent in reading and writing because of his background school. He succesfully entered a college for a year. Well, he passed away - his lung failed - even he looked healthy to me.

sr171soars

Er...all or most? I assume you meant most. I will not agree with "all".

__________________
But trailing clouds of glory till He comes...

Foolishness is not a virtue

jillio

I will concede to "most" with the qualification that I have not met one that does.

sr171soars

Well, let me fix that...you have met one now.

__________________
But trailing clouds of glory till He comes...

Foolishness is not a virtue

jillio

I stand corrected. But to really back that up, we would need some cognitive testing done!

rockdrummer

Just curious... Are there any studies that are available that folks can review to back that up. Also, if its determined that deaf kids do in fact process information differently, then what is the best approach in teaching them.

jillio

Sound and Sign, Kathryn Meadows; Psychology of Deafness, Mark Marshark; When the Mind Hears, Harlan Lane are the three books that popped off the top of my head. There are many more books and joural articles in the fields of education and psychology that support the idea of cognitive differences in processsing.

rockdrummer

Also, if its determined that deaf kids do in fact process information differently, then what is the best approach in teaching them.

jillio

The way they learn best, which would also be the way they most naturally perceive, process and interpret the information in their environment in order to make sense of their world. For the deaf child, that would be a visually based language such as ASL, and not a form of oral language made visable.

jillio

Got another book for you rockdrummer! Cultural and Language Diversity and the Deaf Experience, edited by Ila Prasnis. And for all those who continue to refuse to accept that there is no link between language and cognitive process,(not you rd ) this book was was edited by a professor in the Dept. of Applied Language and Cognition Research at NTID.

rockdrummer

Please correct me if I am wrong but I have been doing some research on the origins of sign language and from what I have read thus far, it seems that ASL (as many things) has evolved over time.

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deafness has been around since the begining of time and way back then deafies would sign to each other and those signs and meanings we passed on but never really documented. The result would have to be different signs being used by different families and in different regions and I would guess those signs don't resemble anything that is used today. The fact that they wern't documented would make it hard to prove one way or the other. As I understand it ASL was derived from old signed english which was based on OFSL brought to this country by Gallaudet. He is the one that recognized deafies using a different form of sign language out of class and it was he that refered to it as their natural language. I understand that ASL is considered a language whereas SEE is a manual means of signing english but wouldn't one consider them both to be visual?

American Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am also stuck a bit on the term "natural language". Is it only considered natural because of its time in existance? How does that stack up against other indigenous sign languages or are they not considered natural? Wouldn't something truly natural be common. Regardless of where anyone is from they squint their eyes when looking at the sun because it's a natural thing to do. Probably not the best comparison but it's all I can think of off the bat.

jillio

A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population, by that population. It will change and evolve, just as oral languages do, but remains fundamentally the same. Other indigineous sign languages are considered natural, because they evelved out a deaf populations need to communicate the concepts specific to that culture.

One is a visual/spatial context and it syntax and grammar are based on the foundation of visual/spatial representation by symbol.. SEE, while visual, lacks the spatial quality that guides syntax, and has, as it's guiding rules for sytax, an oral/ auditory base. So, why both can be seen, both incorporate handshapes and gestures, both are not visual langauges.

shel90

To it this way...both AS and SEE r visual but SEE is not a language itself and it can be confusing to many deaf children. It would be like telling hearing people to speak change their sentence structure to follow the structure of ASL like saying to another hearing person "Hi..me, store go." The other person will not really understand the context of it and it wouldn't feel natural for u, Rockdrummer, to talk like that. That's what SEE does to many deaf children. While it is visual, the ideas and thought orgination feels wrong. It works for some as an educational tool for while conversing...it will disrupt the flow of exchanging messages just like it would for people who r speaking English but using ASL's structure.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

rockdrummer

Great explanation. Thank you. It raises another question for me though. When you say “A natural language is one that evolves strictly on the communication needs of a given population” are you separating deaf and hearing communication needs?

rockdrummer

Do you believe that would be true if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

I understand they have different syntax.

Do you mean it feels wrong for someone that has learned ASL first? Wouldn’t the opposite apply if the child learned another form of sign as their first language?

shel90

It is very hard to explain...are u fluent in ASL?

I started out signing in SEE because I hadnt aquired ASL and it felt like it would take forever to get my messages across because I had to sign every word, every past tense verbs and blah blah..when I finally became fluent in ASL, it was like my signing was more fluid and I could express my ideas easier. Many deaf people learned SEE as their first language but eventually, the "ings" and "is" and all those little words got dropped. To sign SEE, u would have to sign EVERY word. Maybe for some, they can do it but I rarely see anyone in the deaf community really signing in full SEE...more like PSE or ASL.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

webexplorer

Yeah, I notice that. I think that it is probably a bad idea to lose the verbs and the ings. Although, ASL is easy and short hand, and it saves their energy. I don't mind to use ASL or SEE - it depends on the communication between us or group.

shel90

What do u mean a bad idea to lose the ings and present/past verbs? They are already included in ASL in the context of the signs. Are u saying that everyone should start adding the "ings" and "eds" to the verbs while conversing? It is like telling Spanish people to change the way they structure their languages.. u have to let language happen naturally not consicously adding different rules to it.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

rockdrummer

Shel. One is clearly more efficient for personal communication than the other. You said it didn't "feel" natural. Perhaps you are trying to say SEE is more cumbersome. Please correct me if I am wrong.

rockdrummer

I think he means its a bad idea of one is interested in learning english. I would defer to Web to confirm.

shel90

It is, otherwise, all deaf people would be using SEE while conversing. I just cant imagine that happening but if some peope want to change ASL to SEE, by all means go for it. I will just continue with ASL cuz I understand it much better than SEE and my friends and co workers (both hearing and deaf) say the same about SEE. PSE is much more common than SEE and it follows English more closely than ASL does. If u feel more comfortable signing in SEE, who am I to tell u what to do. I prefer deaf children acquire their language through the appropriate languages not thru a visual code of a language and then use whatever tools they feel they can benefit from to help them with reading and writing.

__________________
~Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

shel90