Deaf Education - One size does not fit all - Page 4

jillio · 01-18-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

This explains well the importance of English literacy.

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

Unfortunately, we seem to be reducing communication to a very concrete definition of being able to communicate needs and wants to the larger hearing society. Communication is so much more than that. Without a strong foundation in a language that allows one to communicate on a more abstract level, to discuss feelings, impressions, thoughts, reactions, observations, to ask questions, and to communicate understanding of the world around oneself, true communication has not been achieved. That is the problem with restricting a deaf child to an oral only environment. The language use may be suffiecient to communicate on a very concrete level, but the imaginative use of language is not there. These kids are quite often restricted in their ability to use language to express novel and creative thought through language. That is why I say that we need to stop devoting their entire childhood to providing them skill to communicate with the hearing only, and give them an environment that allows them to develop intellectually, socially, cognitively, and emotionally. Once that has been achieved, the skills to communicate with the hearing world will develop to a greater degree. And, in the process, we have a child whose developmental needs have been met on ALL levels, and at the appropriate stages. It's a win-win situation. We are creating much of the deficit that we complain about.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

If Total Communication program uses sign language, voice, fingerspelling and lipreading then how can that not be possible? Even if a child who cannot communicate orally gets additional support from signs and vice versa.

Humm..just spilting them in groups would just solve that problem? It's like putting all black in one group and all white in another group. I just don't see any equal access in that program.

TC generally uses sim-com. That provides a confusing linguistic environment for the child. They end up getting less than effective models for both sign and English.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

One of the major problems as I understand it is that you can't compare one bi bi program to another. You can't compare one TC program to another becuase as many have mentioned before, there are programs out there that claim to be bi-bi and that claim to be TC but are really not by definition. This is because of many factors of which few, if any are controlable. Personally I believe that exposing a deaf child to all methods is a good approach. I think there is importance in the education no doubt. But there is also importance in communication with the majority. ASL while a beautiful language and an efficient means of communication, does have it's drawbacks. A deaf child is going to have a bit more of a load on his back than hearing children with regards to education not only in a bi bi program but also in a TC program. It's an extra load to have to learn two languages and a further load to have to learn speech. It's a tough road for these kids but with a TC approach I believe they will be better prepared for life in the real world.

Exposing to all methods does not necessarily exposing to all methods simultaneously. It is not an extra load cognitively if they are not exposed simultaneously. Imagine 2 teachers in front of a hearing class room teaching algebra and history at exactly the same time. Would you come away with sufficient understanding of either? Of course not. It requires a form of splint attention of which people simply are not capable cognitively. One cannot give full attention to 2 things that require that degree of concentration at once. Think of it this way: When you are driving in a familiar area, it is easy to carry on a conversation with a passenger and navigate your car through the roads at the same time. But if you are in an area of heavy traffic, unfamiliar with the area, and looking for a specific address, you cannot continue to carry on a conversation and drive at the same time. You will stop talking, and use your cognitive powers to accomplish the task of negotiating the heavy traffic and looking for the address you need. Once the traffic thins out, and you are back in familiar territory, you can resume your talking and driving at the same time. It is the same thing in a classroom. If we expect children to learn well, we cannot place them in a situation that creates a cognitiveoverload, and expect them to give full attention to 2 tasks that require split attention.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Put that on a tee shirt... I bet many deaf would wear it.

I'm not deaf, but I would certainly wear it!

jillio · 01-18-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that speech be the utmost priority and that it should take precedence over education. I believe the point is to include it in the cirriculim.

Unfortunatly, rd, it does happen every day, and particluarly for all of the mainstreamed children that are pulled out of their regular classrooms to attend speech therapy. Speech, imo, should not be part of an academic cuiiculum, but a rehabilitation effort.

Cheri · 01-18-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Cuz deaf kids can't hear so speech and spoken language isn't fully accesible to them or so what I thought?

Deaf children do not need to hear with their ears to be taught speech. You should know that we rely more on our vision in a sense we hear with our eyes. There is a mirror in speech therapy where deaf children can look at themselves to pronounce words and the sounds of each begin letter of a word. They are capable to understand speech by placing a hand to their throat and their mouth and the speech therapist's mouth and throat too.

Yes it is gonna get very difficult to learn but they can do it all they have to do is try harder.

Angel · 01-18-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I agree because for one take one good look at how Helen Keller learned how to sign and how to speak she made a remarkable break through in communication and she's deaf and blind.

Learning oral was tough, I did not play as much as other kids I spend summer at summer school for speech training, now I look at myself and how grateful that I've learned very good speech skills, it beats writing everything down on a notebook pad.

Children will miss out not only on a quaility of education but also on crucial life and communication skills if no speech skills.

Bi bi method is given a lesson in deaf culture and an identity that they can be proud of, but what is so proud of being deaf? Am I proud of being deaf, no but this is what been given to me and I accepted that..

!! Helen Keller is my hero!

Cheri · 01-18-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

TC generally uses sim-com. That provides a confusing linguistic environment for the child. They end up getting less than effective models for both sign and English.

It wasn't confusing to me it beats learning just one like oralism and ASL itself.

Cheri · 01-18-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

!! Helen Keller is my hero!

She is mine too.

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Exposing to all methods does not necessarily exposing to all methods simultaneously. It is not an extra load cognitively if they are not exposed simultaneously. Imagine 2 teachers in front of a hearing class room teaching algebra and history at exactly the same time. Would you come away with sufficient understanding of either? Of course not. It requires a form of splint attention of which people simply are not capable cognitively. One cannot give full attention to 2 things that require that degree of concentration at once. Think of it this way: When you are driving in a familiar area, it is easy to carry on a conversation with a passenger and navigate your car through the roads at the same time. But if you are in an area of heavy traffic, unfamiliar with the area, and looking for a specific address, you cannot continue to carry on a conversation and drive at the same time. You will stop talking, and use your cognitive powers to accomplish the task of negotiating the heavy traffic and looking for the address you need. Once the traffic thins out, and you are back in familiar territory, you can resume your talking and driving at the same time. It is the same thing in a classroom. If we expect children to learn well, we cannot place them in a situation that creates a cognitiveoverload, and expect them to give full attention to 2 tasks that require split attention.

I don't think anyone suggested simultaneous exposure.

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Unfortunately, we seem to be reducing communication to a very concrete definition of being able to communicate needs and wants to the larger hearing society. Communication is so much more than that. Without a strong foundation in a language that allows one to communicate on a more abstract level, to discuss feelings, impressions, thoughts, reactions, observations, to ask questions, and to communicate understanding of the world around oneself, true communication has not been achieved. That is the problem with restricting a deaf child to an oral only environment. The language use may be suffiecient to communicate on a very concrete level, but the imaginative use of language is not there. These kids are quite often restricted in their ability to use language to express novel and creative thought through language. That is why I say that we need to stop devoting their entire childhood to providing them skill to communicate with the hearing only, and give them an environment that allows them to develop intellectually, socially, cognitively, and emotionally. Once that has been achieved, the skills to communicate with the hearing world will develop to a greater degree. And, in the process, we have a child whose developmental needs have been met on ALL levels, and at the appropriate stages. It's a win-win situation. We are creating much of the deficit that we complain about.

You make valid points about communication but nobody is suggesting an oral only environment.

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Unfortunatly, rd, it does happen every day, and particluarly for all of the mainstreamed children that are pulled out of their regular classrooms to attend speech therapy. Speech, imo, should not be part of an academic cuiiculum, but a rehabilitation effort.

And at what point in a childs development would you include such rehabilitation?

Cheri · 01-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Cheri you have made some very compelling points which are re-enforced in the article I provided. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

Which article? Can you tell me what post number I'm on sidekick and it takes forever to reload AD.

Angel · 01-18-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Which article? Can you tell me what post number I'm on sidekick and it takes forever to reload AD.

Aw poor you

and I know the feelings

the very very first postie sis

jillio · 01-18-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

It wasn't confusing to me it beats learning just one like oralism and ASL itself.

I agree that it beats oralism or ASL by themselves. And for communication purposes, TC works better in day-to-day communications than it does in the classroom. When one is communicating in a less formal environment than the classroom, one can always stop and say, "I didn't understand that. Could you please repeat?" But in a classroom, where instruction is not so dyadic, it isn't quite as effective. If I had to choose between oral only, ASL only, and TC, I would definately choose TC. But all of these methods have some serious downsides. That is why I support Bi-Bi. The purpose of Bi-Bi is not just to provide a Deaf Cultural affiliation for children, which I do think is important and leads to more than pride in being deaf, but also addresses some very real social and psychological developmental needs that everyone has, but also to provide them with an atmosphere in which they learn to complete languages. That has been proven to be an advantage cognitively for all people, deaf or hearing.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

And at what point in a childs development would you include such rehabilitation?

That would depend upon the child, as well as some other important variables. But in gerneral, one must be habilitated before one can be rehabilitated.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

I don't think anyone suggested simultaneous exposure.

TC is simultaneous exposure.

jillio · 01-18-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

You make valid points about communication but nobody is suggesting an oral only environment.

I'm not talking about an oral only environment, either. I was referencing the difference in methodologies between TC and Bi-Bi. When I said "oral only environment" I wass simply pointing out the problem in that one philosophy. But TC, also, is, in practice, English based and some of the problems with language acquisition that are seen in an oral only environment transfer to an English based TC environment. Most TC programs employ sim-com in the classroom, which is visual and oral delivery of English at the same time. Refer back to my post #93 for an explanation of the problems with sim-com. When I refer to oral, I don't always mean "spoken". English is an orally based language, no matter what mode is used to deliver it. But I'll try to be clearer from now on.

Cheri · 01-18-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I agree that it beats oralism or ASL by themselves. And for communication purposes, TC works better in day-to-day communications than it does in the classroom. When one is communicating in a less formal environment than the classroom, one can always stop and say, "I didn't understand that. Could you please repeat?" But in a classroom, where instruction is not so dyadic, it isn't quite as effective

I don't know where you getting this information from but this is nowhere near the truth, how can a deaf person would not be understood when there's a sign language interpreter in the classroom with other hearing children, I have not experienced anyone who did not understand an interpreter, and deaf students have a choice to answer a question to a teacher by using their own voice or have the interpreter voice the answer to the teacher for them.

Quote:

. That is why I support Bi-Bi. The purpose of Bi-Bi is not just to provide a Deaf Cultural affiliation for children, which I do think is important and leads to more than pride in being deaf, but also addresses some very real social and psychological developmental needs that everyone has, but also to provide them with an atmosphere in which they learn to complete languages. That has been proven to be an advantage cognitively for all people, deaf or hearing.

If that was so true then tell me why bi bi program is not as popular as oral and TC? Humm?

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Which article? Can you tell me what post number I'm on sidekick and it takes forever to reload AD.

The one I referenced in the first post of this thread. Here it is again for you

Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

TC is simultaneous exposure.

That really depends on the program and the abilities of the children in the classroom I would imagine. I know that in my sons TC class at his old school there was not a specific set of rules applied and they individualized the approach depending on the childs abilities. In my view it must be individualized and is part of the point here in that every deaf child has different learning styles and needs.

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

That would depend upon the child, as well as some other important variables. But in gerneral, one must be habilitated before one can be rehabilitated.

That doesn't quite make sense to me. re-habilitation is to restore a former capacity Habilitation is to make capable. So are you saying that one must have the capabilities of speech (habilitation), then loose that capability and then they can be re-habilitated? Also, if you don't mind, what are the other important variables that determine when (and where) speech should be introduced into the learning process?

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 02:06 PM

Either this is not etched in stone, or some schools make adjustments, or as I said earlier not all TC programs are created equal. The reason I say that is only because of what I have seen in the case of my son. Granted that is a very limited view.

Source: Total Communication - Using Sign Language and Voice for Total Communication

Quote:

WHAT IS TOTAL COMMUNICATION?

Total communication is the using any means of communication - sign language, voice, fingerspelling, lipreading, amplification, writing, gesture, visual imagery (pictures). The sign language used in total communication is more closely related to English. The philosophy of total communication is that the method should be fitted to the child, instead of the other way around. Another commonly used term for total communication is simultaneous communication, known as sim-com.

Although some schools/programs for the deaf use ASL and English, the majority of educational programs for the deaf use total communication. (The program attended by my own children uses total communication). The idea is that using total communication will create a "least restrictive" learning environment for the deaf child, who is free to develop communication preferences although the child will be encouraged to use both speech and sign language.

DISADVANTAGES, ADVANTAGES OF TOTAL COMMUNICATION

Some people feel that the problem with the total communication method of communication is that the effort to sign and speak at the same time results in a poorer quality of sign language. Not only that, some people believe that total communication results in deaf children failing to develop fluency in either English or ASL because of the imperfect use of both. Others favor total communication as a catch-all that ensures that a child has access to some means of communication. For example, a child who can not communicate well orally gets the additional support of sign language, and vice versa.

rockdrummer · 01-18-2008, 02:10 PM

Here is another definition of TC from the original article I referenced in the first post. This description fits more of what I have seen in my sons school and also supports what I believe about making adjustments to fit the unique learning styles and needs of individuals as opposed to trying to fit the child to the program.

Source: Options in Deaf Education-History, Methodologies, and Strategies for Surviving the System

Quote:

TOTAL COMMUNICATION (TC)

Total Communication is an educational philosophy. “Total Communication can best be defined as eclectic, borrowing techniques form a variety of different methods.”110 Ideally teachers can use sign, writing, mime, speech, pictures or any other communication method that works. The method of communication should depend upon the needs of the student and the situation. In actual practice, most Total Communication programs use some form of Simultaneous Communication. Children are encouraged to work on speech and listening skills. “All children are encouraged to develop skill in all areas (sign language, speech and audition), although children are allowed to develop a mode of communication that is best for them.”111

A benefit of Total Communication is that it can provide a “safety net” for children who have difficulty following oral methods by using English that is supported by sign. It also allows the child some form of expressive communication. One of the big disadvantages associated with Total Communication is that it tends to limit a child’s language experience. Children are never exposed to complex English or complex ASL.112 “Dumbing down” both languages prevents children from attaining fluency in either language.

flip · 01-18-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

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

01-18-2008, 03:45 PM	#115 (permalink)
flip Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 430	Quote: