Deaf Education - One size does not fit all - Page 14

rockdrummer · 01-31-2008, 11:59 AM

Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?

jillio · 01-31-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?

Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.

jillio · 01-31-2008, 12:28 PM

Just thought of an example that might help to illustrate my point. Rote learning. A student can learn by rote, and thus memorize all the information needed to properly answer questions on an exam. However, if they have learned it by rote, if they are given a question that requires application of that material, they will be lost. The same way with language learning.

loml · 01-31-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?

rockdrummer - I believe that a deaf child in a hearing family should be afforded the opportunity to learn/acquire the language of their family from the native users of their language, their very own family. Home is one of the richest enviroments for languae aquisition/learning. Cued Speech allows the family to model for their deaf child the phonemes of the familial spoken language, English, French, in fact 60 possible dialects! Phonemes may not be the only way to acquire language, but chances are it is the way that the family learned. Visual access to all the phonemes of their families language! Simply awesome!

Cued speech can be and is learned in as little as 16-20 hours, the complete system! The parents are not necessarily, at this point having to learn a foreign language. Communication and inclusion possible without having to think....okay what is the sign for?????? Learning ASL for many adults is a daunting task.

IF the family has the opportunity and resources, I also believe that a fluent, native, deaf ASL role model should be the teacher of ASL, ideally also as soon as possible.

m2b

shel90 · 01-31-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?

Because deaf people dont have the hearing ability to access English 100% like hearing kids and run the risk of language delays if they struggle with picking up it.

ASL is fully accessible to deaf people cuz it is a visual language so learn both at the same time.

I dont understand why it has to be one or the other. Like can be either oral or ASL. I have seen kids who have been exposed to both and some of them became fluent in both at the same time.

I dont like the idea of presenting the one language that is not fully accessible and run the risk of delays. I see it too much..wayyy too much.

shel90 · 01-31-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.

A perfect example of the rigidity happened in my class today. Those who learned ASL later on (the ones from the oral programs) couldnt explain in abstract thoughts why the girl in the story did this or that but my students who were exposed to ASL first could. The late ASL learners can explain and answer concrete questions but when it comes to abstract questions, they need a lot of prompts from me before they understand them. They have a long way to go while my students who learned ASL first are performing just like hearing children regarding to the abstract thoughts.

Yes, it is great that they have oral skills but without a full access to language nor the opportunities to play around with language while young makes the capability to think abstractly difficult. That is why we see so many referrals of students in the 4th grade age range from the other programs. At that grade, the language delays become very apparent and the curriculm becomes extremely difficult for them.

Start them out young so they wont have this problem later on. That is my philosophy.

jillio · 01-31-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

A perfect example of the rigidity happened in my class today. Those who learned ASL later on (the ones from the oral programs) couldnt explain in abstract thoughts why the girl in the story did this or that but my students who were exposed to ASL first could. The late ASL learners can explain and answer concrete questions but when it comes to abstract questions, they need a lot of prompts from me before they understand them. They have a long way to go while my students who learned ASL first are performing just like hearing children regarding to the abstract thoughts.

Yes, it is great that they have oral skills but without a full access to language nor the opportunities to play around with language while young makes the capability to think abstractly difficult. That is why we see so many referrals of students in the 4th grade age range from the other programs. At that grade, the language delays become very apparent and the curriculm becomes extremely difficult for them.

Start them out young so they wont have this problem later on. That is my philosophy.

That is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

shel90 · 02-01-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Would love to see all deaf children have the same rights to equal access to education as hearing children to but if those oralists have their way, it is not gonna happen.

jillio · 02-01-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Would love to see all deaf children have the same rights to equal access to education as hearing children to but if those oralists have their way, it is not gonna happen.

Iknow what you mean. Hasn't got anything to do with equal access. Its more about conformity. Conform to the oral only way, I demand it of you!

Cheri · 02-02-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

rockdrummer - I believe that a deaf child in a hearing family should be afforded the opportunity to learn/acquire the language of their family from the native users of their language, their very own family. Home is one of the richest enviroments for languae aquisition/learning.

I respectfully disagree, It isn't about the family, it's about the deaf child. Tell me why a deaf child is forced to learn the family's language? This is a very difficult task. It's like telling a handicapped child to walk because the whole family walks. They should find a better and more effective way to communicate even if the hearing parents/family have to learn a whole new language. The difference between a hearing and a deaf child is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing children, they use their hearing mode. In the case of deaf children, they use the visual or seeing mode. So, You cannot expect a deaf child to learn the family's language. It sounds unfair in my opinion.

loml · 02-02-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I respectfully disagree, It isn't about the family, it's about the deaf child. Tell me why a deaf child is forced to learn the family's language? This is a very difficult task. It's like telling a handicapped child to walk because the whole family walks. They should find a better and more effective way to communicate even if the hearing parents/family have to learn a whole new language. The difference between a hearing and a deaf child is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing children, they use their hearing mode. In the case of deaf children, they use the visual or seeing mode. So, You cannot expect a deaf child to learn the family's language. It sounds unfair in my opinion.

Cheri- I can see what you are saying, if you are referring to acquiring/learning language through speech only. However, learning the language of your family for a deaf child, imo, is no harder than learning a form of sign (language). I am a cuer of English. I found cueing through my personal experience with the Deaf community, deaf education system, interpreter programs, rehabilitation institutions and the medical system. Cued Speech can/does give a deaf child from a hearing family access to their families language. Myself, I consider this a fabulous gift of early intervention. It is a visual form of, it is kenesthetic and can be auditory, of course depending on the level of hearing loss. As with ASL from a fluent deaf signer, the child can/does recieve and aquire/learn their families language from people who are fluent in that language.

As with any successful aquisition of language, there must be consistency, accuracy and dedication.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I respectfully disagree, It isn't about the family, it's about the deaf child. Tell me why a deaf child is forced to learn the family's language? This is a very difficult task. It's like telling a handicapped child to walk because the whole family walks. They should find a better and more effective way to communicate even if the hearing parents/family have to learn a whole new language. The difference between a hearing and a deaf child is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing children, they use their hearing mode. In the case of deaf children, they use the visual or seeing mode. So, You cannot expect a deaf child to learn the family's language. It sounds unfair in my opinion.

To ask the child to do what is necessary to compensate is to put the child in the role of the adult. It is the parents who are the adults. Act like it. Take responsibility for responding to your child's needs. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR CHILD TO FULFILL YOUR NEEDS.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Cheri- I can see what you are saying, if you are referring to acquiring/learning language through speech only. However, learning the language of your family for a deaf child, imo, is no harder than learning a form of sign (language). I am a cuer of English. I found cueing through my personal experience with the Deaf community, deaf education system, interpreter programs, rehabilitation institutions and the medical system. Cued Speech can/does give a deaf child from a hearing family access to their families language. Myself, I consider this a fabulous gift of early intervention. It is a visual form of, it is kenesthetic and can be auditory, of course depending on the level of hearing loss. As with ASL from a fluent deaf signer, the child can/does recieve and aquire/learn their families language from people who are fluent in that language.

As with any successful aquisition of language, there must be consistency, accuracy and dedication.

You still seem to be confused regarding the difference between acquisition and learning. The very fact that you refer to having "found" cuing is testiment to the fact that it was not a process of aqcquisition, but of learning. While it is possible that CS could be a useful tool for teaching English, it has yet to be supported as a method for acquiring an L1 language.

shel90 · 02-02-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I respectfully disagree, It isn't about the family, it's about the deaf child. Tell me why a deaf child is forced to learn the family's language? This is a very difficult task. It's like telling a handicapped child to walk because the whole family walks. They should find a better and more effective way to communicate even if the hearing parents/family have to learn a whole new language. The difference between a hearing and a deaf child is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing children, they use their hearing mode. In the case of deaf children, they use the visual or seeing mode. So, You cannot expect a deaf child to learn the family's language. It sounds unfair in my opinion.

I agree with u there.

loml · 02-02-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

To ask the child to do what is necessary to compensate is to put the child in the role of the adult. It is the parents who are the adults. Act like it. Take responsibility for responding to your child's needs. DO NOT EXPECT YOUR CHILD TO FULFILL YOUR NEEDS.

Jillio - Cued Speech can/does meet the needs of a deaf child in a hearing family with the language of their own family.

Suggesting that the families who choose this method are not meeting their deaf child needs and are expecting the child to fulfiill their families needs, is simply ignorance on your part.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Jillio - Cued Speech can/does meet the needs of a deaf child in a hearing family with the language of their own family.

Suggesting that the families who choose this method are not meeting their deaf child needs and are expecting the child to fulfiill their families needs, is simply ignorance on your part.

That is what you continue to claim, loml, but you fail to support it with anything but your own opinion. And, when the family expects a deaf child to meet their needs for oral communication, they are ignoring the deaf child's needs, developmentally, linguistically, psychologically, and educationally. That, my friend, can be supported with empirical evidence, not opinion.

loml · 02-02-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

You still seem to be confused regarding the difference between acquisition and learning. The very fact that you refer to having "found" cuing is testiment to the fact that it was not a process of aqcquisition, but of learning. While it is possible that CS could be a useful tool for teaching English, it has yet to be supported as a method for acquiring an L1 language.

You still seem to be confused as to what Cued Speech is and does.

It is spelled cueing.

loml · 02-02-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That is what you continue to claim, loml, but you fail to support it with anything but your own opinion. And, when the family expects a deaf child to meet their needs for oral communication, they are ignoring the deaf child's needs, developmentally, linguistically, psychologically, and educationally. That, my friend, can be supported with empirical evidence, not opinion.

Do not confuse my posting regarding Cued Speech with that of oral only edcuation jillio.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Do not confuse my posting regarding Cued Speech with that of oral only edcuation jillio.

I do not confuse it at all, loml. CS is a moderated form of oralism, as it is based on an oral language. Just because someone made up a few handshapes to supplement oral English, doesn't mean it has been transformed into something less oral.

Cheri · 02-02-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loml

Do not confuse my posting regarding Cued Speech with that of oral only edcuation jillio.

Cued Speech method is an oral approach, I'm sorry you may disagree with me, I've took it, only that it added eight hand shapes signs. Cued Speech is based on phonetic sounds and it can be used in every language.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Cued Speech method is an oral approach, I'm sorry you may disagree with me, I've took it and it is an oral approach method, only that it added eight hand shapes signs. Cued Speech is based on phonetic sounds and it can be used in every language.

Thank you, Cheri.

Cheri · 02-02-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I do not confuse it at all, loml. CS is a moderated form of oralism, as it is based on an oral language. Just because someone made up a few handshapes to supplement oral English, doesn't mean it has been transformed into something less oral.

Yep, Jillio you're very right.

jillio · 02-02-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Yep, Jillio you're very right.

again!

01-31-2008, 11:59 AM	#391 (permalink)
rockdrummer Always 1 beat off Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Chicago area Posts: 3,008	Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?

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

01-31-2008, 12:28 PM	#393 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 19,246	Just thought of an example that might help to illustrate my point. Rote learning. A student can learn by rote, and thus memorize all the information needed to properly answer questions on an exam. However, if they have learned it by rote, if they are given a question that requires application of that material, they will be lost. The same way with language learning.