BiBi success stories.

dreama · 09-06-2008, 11:15 PM

The media is very biased. I am sick to death of hearing about success stories about deaf people being given CI's etc etc...
Since I don't think the media are likely to print too many BiBi or sign language success stories I'd like to invite Signing Deaf people to let me know about their own successes in this thread.

I'm particularly interested in those who were raised with a BiBi approach.

Bottesini · 09-06-2008, 11:24 PM

Johnson, Liddell, and Erting's 1989 proposal, "Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education" this is when BIBI first became well known.

Bilingual Deaf Resources

Above is a link about the subject.

Isn't it only about 3% in use in deaf ed?

Also too new to have much known about its success?

dreama · 09-06-2008, 11:47 PM

Thanks for your response and link. Yes I do know BiBi in education is fairly new but there has always been Deaf people who were brought up by their Deaf parents or parents like Jillo who were dedicated to teach their deaf children signing from beginning. So Although the BiBi aproach is new, I think fortunately there have been Deaf raised with Signing from start.

I'm sure they are successes out there. In fact I know of signing Deaf man who won Deaf Achievers award 1992 when I was put up for that. He was a sailor and when there was a storm he took over boat and helped other hearing sailors get to shore.

Buffalo · 09-06-2008, 11:48 PM

Dreama, I agree with you that there should be more positive news on BI-BI method. Jillio's thread is the first thing I thought of when reading your thread. This is from: http://www.alldeaf.com/sign-language...arly-sign.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The failure to develop an effective and sophisticated language at an early age has negative consequences for all aspects of psychological development, and thus for children's mental health (Hindley & Parkes, 1999). There is evidence that deaf children of deaf parents who use sign language in their communication have significantly better linguistic, social, and academic skills than their deaf peers with hearing parents. Deaf children of hearing parents who have contacts with deaf people and share the language seem to have a similar advantage. Thus, the deaf children who are the most competent in their social, cognitive, and linguistic development are those who have participated in active linguistic interaction with their parents from an early age. This applies both to deaf parents and to hearing parents who have learned sign language, which permits them to interact meaningfully with their children. The child not only learns facts through this interaction, but also gains behavioral and cognitive strategies, an understanding of self and others, and a feeling of being part of society.

The present study shows that it is important for hearing parents to start communicating early with their deaf child in sign language. The early start is crucial, even though hearing parents are naturally far from fluent in sign language at the time. A simplified and partly nongrammatical sign language is used by deaf mothers in their communication with the child during the first 2 years. In order not to confuse the child, they tend to simply use hand signs with respect to Wh- questions, keeping a neutral face, while using facial expressions only when expressing affection. This permits the child to read only "one visual channel at a time." When the child reaches the age of 2 years, the mother, without being conscious of the change, shifts her strategy and starts using the adult language withi "two simultaneously active visual channels," where the hand signs are complemented with grammatically correct facial expressions (Reilly & Bellugi, 1996).

For a deaf child with hearing parents, it is vital that parents start signing with their child to initiate communication, though the signing may first be simple and incomplete. This provides the opportunity for the child to start developing language. Thus, it is essential to communicate with the child by sign language, even though the parents may eventually opt for cochlear implantation.

There is nothing to indicate that the combination of signs and speech mitigates the development of concepts. One study indicates that the child seems to be able to code-switch in relation to the actual context and his or her partner (Preisler & Ahlstrom,1997). There are also no data to show that sign language as a first language will inhibit spoken language. Deaf children who learn sign language as a first language usually have better skills in reading and writing than deaf children who have only been exposed to spoken language (Marschark, 1993).

Magnuson, M. (2000). Infants with congenital deafness: on the importance of early sign language acquisition. American Annals of the Deaf. 145-1. 6-14.

This is a no-brainer!

dreama · 09-13-2008, 12:04 AM

Come on people. There MUST be success stories out there. If they aren't brought forward then all people get to read about is the same old pro CI propaganda.

Buffalo · 09-13-2008, 03:21 AM

This is from Deaf Education - Bilingual-Bicultural Education for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

Quote:

For many years now, it was thought that total communication would meet the needs of deaf children who need sign language and voice. Now, as scientific evidence continues to pile up that sign language is the natural language of deaf children, and even that their brains function differently, the pendulum is swinging again in another direction -- towards bilingual-bicultural.

What is bilingual-bicultural education?

As best as I can understand it - never having experienced it myself - is that it means that ASL is used to teach deaf children, with English taught as a second language. For as long as anyone can remember, the average deaf high school graduate's reading level remained stubbornly low. Many deaf children did succeed but overall, it still remained low. No one knew what would work. Then the evidence of research began to come in: Deaf children of deaf parents tended to do better. More recently, study after study has been released showing that sign language is the default language of deaf children, who ARE visual learners. In Nicaragua, deaf children developed an entire new language on their own.

Independent bilingual-bicultural charter schools began to spring up. Now more schools are beginning to recognize it as well. New York City's JHS 47, a public school for the deaf, announced it would drop total communication in favor of bilingual bicultural. This was big news and even was reported on in the New York Times. This quoted sentence from the article says it all: "Deaf children could not understand their hearing teachers, which has produced failure after failure." [Even if the teachers are deaf, they may not be using ASL].

What does all this mean?

It means that we need a fourth educational option. For years the only options were oral, cued speech, or total communication. Now we must add a fourth option, the bilingual-bicultural option. The other options should not be dropped - there are many deaf children who thrive with the other options.

Once Bi-Bi is proved to be so successful, the other options should be dropped. ASL should be used in classes. I would love to see parents learn sign language soon after they found out that their baby is deaf. That way, the child's coomunication skill is not delayed at all.

shel90 · 09-13-2008, 08:35 AM

I can see the evidence of success thru my students...those who have been in the BiBi program since they were babies are doing a lot better than those kids who were referred to our program from TC and oral programs.

jillio · 09-13-2008, 10:14 AM

There is also historical eveidence of success. Prior to the oral revolution, even though it wasn't called bi-bi, deaf education employed the same philosophies and methodologies of bi-bi. Deaf students were educated on par during that period. We began to see problems with the education of deaf students when the oralists took over.

dreama · 09-14-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

I can see the evidence of success thru my students...those who have been in the BiBi program since they were babies are doing a lot better than those kids who were referred to our program from TC and oral programs.

That's really good to know? I'd like to hear more about your bibi pupil's please. What are their grades like? How old were they when they learn't to read?

Almyra · 09-15-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

There MUST be success stories out there.

There will be no positive contributions from me on this thread...

I am glad Shel90 posted. From her other postings it sounds like her school is on the right track to meeting its goal for students.

Bottesini · 09-15-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Almyra

There will be no positive contributions from me on this thread...

I am glad Shel90 posted. From her other postings it sounds like her school is on the right track to meeting its goal for students.

Why laugh? And are you against the BIBI philosophy if you have no positive contribution?

20 years from now there should be many success stories.

netrox · 09-15-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

Come on people. There MUST be success stories out there. If they aren't brought forward then all people get to read about is the same old pro CI propaganda.

That's because there aren't.

It's like trying to teach Spanish through English. It just doesn't work well. I'd say that deafies with high intelligence will be able to figure out and master the command of English by reading well.

But you cannot just make the average deaf person become fluent in English if he is only getting ASL. If the deaf is exposed to cued English for at least a couple of years, it will provide them a foundation of English and from there, they can start thinking in English and find reading much easier to comprehend.

jillio · 09-15-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

That's because there aren't.

It's like trying to teach Spanish through English. It just doesn't work well. I'd say that deafies with high intelligence will be able to figure out and master the command of English by reading well.

But you cannot just make the average deaf person become fluent in English if he is only getting ASL. If the deaf is exposed to cued English for at least a couple of years, it will provide them a foundation of English and from there, they can start thinking in English and find reading much easier to comprehend.

Respectfully, your views are in error. Native language is used to teach L2 langauage all the time, and is an accepted and successful approach.

netrox · 09-15-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Respectfully, your views are in error. Native language is used to teach L2 langauage all the time, and is an accepted and successful approach.

Concurrent translation has been a failure and linguists have been saying it's NOT effective. They say that the best to learn language is to SOAK into it, not translate this statement to other language back and forth.

"There is one method that has been found to be completely detrimental to language development and it is called "Concurrent Translation." This method is implemented in a fashion where the instructor will say something in English and then immediately translate it into the native language or vice versa."

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Other research supporting the idea that concurrent translation is NOT favorable:

Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review More Effective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition?

"Concurrent Translation Programs:

Teachers shifts between languages to communicate each idea. (sounds like Bi-Bi)
Concurrent translation programs are wide spread. (yeah Bi Bi)
Researchers have discredited concurrent translation programs. (of course)
Children often ignore the second language. (duh!)
Teachers tend to favor one language or the other, usually not developing both languages. (of course!)
Teachers tend to not make English intelligible." (of course!)

Bilingual Education

That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students.

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

That's because there aren't.

It's like trying to teach Spanish through English. It just doesn't work well. I'd say that deafies with high intelligence will be able to figure out and master the command of English by reading well.

But you cannot just make the average deaf person become fluent in English if he is only getting ASL. If the deaf is exposed to cued English for at least a couple of years, it will provide them a foundation of English and from there, they can start thinking in English and find reading much easier to comprehend.

too bad, u arent working where I am working at and seeing the success of the BiBi approach.

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Concurrent translation has been a failure and linguists have been saying it's NOT effective. They say that the best to learn language is to SOAK into it, not translate this statement to other language back and forth.

"There is one method that has been found to be completely detrimental to language development and it is called "Concurrent Translation." This method is implemented in a fashion where the instructor will say something in English and then immediately translate it into the native language or vice versa."

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Other research supporting the idea that concurrent translation is NOT favorable:

Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review More Effective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition?

"Concurrent Translation Programs:

Teachers shifts between languages to communicate each idea. (sounds like Bi-Bi)
Concurrent translation programs are wide spread. (yeah Bi Bi)
Researchers have discredited concurrent translation programs. (of course)
Children often ignore the second language. (duh!)
Teachers tend to favor one language or the other, usually not developing both languages. (of course!)
Teachers tend to not make English intelligible." (of course!)

Bilingual Education

That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students.

My friend, that is not how it works at the BiBi program where I work at.

This research u got is talking about translation using spoken languages..nothing about Deaf ed there...

Have u ever worked in a BiBi program before?

That comment about "saying something in English and then translating it into the native language" has nothing to do with ASL and English.

I think u are referring to spoken English and other spoken languages..using both in the classroom which sounds more of a Total Communication approach. If I am correct, then yes that would show why TC programs do not work at all. Too confusing for the students.

In the BiBi approach, we do not do anything like this research described in the classroom...that just sounds so much like a TC approach.

You are using research done on hearing kids to criticize Deaf education. Last year, 3 of my students' reading levels went up 2 grade levels in one year. If that's not success, then I dont know what your definition of success is. To me, that is successful.

U have to keep in mind...many students who are in BiBi programs do not have a strong first language to begin with coming from other programs that failed them further delaying them so without a strong first language, it is very very difficult for any kid to tackle on a 2nd language and literacy skills.

We do try our best with our unique population of kids. These Spanish-speaking kids mentioned in this research already had a strong first language which is Spanish. Big difference.

Just keep that in mind when u think of "failures"

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 06:18 PM

Until many of you actually worked as a Deaf ed teacher using a wide range of teaching methodologies, u really have no idea. If u want to call this or that a failure, then why dont u all become teachers and tackle on the literacy problems in Deaf children if u have such a strong opinion of what works and what doesnt work?

Remember, we have to think what works for the majority not just for a select few.

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreama

That's really good to know? I'd like to hear more about your bibi pupil's please. What are their grades like? How old were they when they learn't to read?

I cant share each kids' grades or ages but I worked with many kids who have came to our program so late not having a strong first language at the age of 5, 6, 7 so we had to work with them on building their language foundation at those ages before getting them to read...however, I am seeing that the average age of those language delayed kids is around 9 to 11 years old when they start picking up so fast and catching up.

For those who started with the BiBi program, they start learning how to identify the alphabet using English print in PreK (ages 4)..learn to read in kindergarten and then go from there.

We have few students who are reading above grade level and they all have been in the BiBi program since they were infants. Many of them are on grade level and yes, we have many others who are reading below grade level but starting to catch up due to being language delayed from other programs.

I do not count the deaf students with cognitive disabilities..

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 06:30 PM

Netrox, before I became a teacher...or even enrolled in the Deaf ed program, I used to think because the oral-only approach was the most successful only because I could read and write on par with my hearing peers. After completing my grad coursework in Deaf Ed and language acquistion and being a teacher in different Deaf ed programs, I was dead wrong about my beliefs.

If the CS approach worked for you, great but for many others, it didnt work just like the oral-only approach worked for me (or so they said) but failed so many others so I cant use what worked for me to apply to a population of children. I have to see what proved to the most successful and most accessible for the majority and that was what I saw with the BiBi approach which is why I strongly believe in it.

The TC approach didnt work because of, like that research or artice you posted state, concurrent translation.

jillio · 09-15-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Concurrent translation has been a failure and linguists have been saying it's NOT effective. They say that the best to learn language is to SOAK into it, not translate this statement to other language back and forth.

"There is one method that has been found to be completely detrimental to language development and it is called "Concurrent Translation." This method is implemented in a fashion where the instructor will say something in English and then immediately translate it into the native language or vice versa."

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Other research supporting the idea that concurrent translation is NOT favorable:

Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review More Effective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition?

"Concurrent Translation Programs:

Teachers shifts between languages to communicate each idea. (sounds like Bi-Bi)
Concurrent translation programs are wide spread. (yeah Bi Bi)
Researchers have discredited concurrent translation programs. (of course)
Children often ignore the second language. (duh!)
Teachers tend to favor one language or the other, usually not developing both languages. (of course!)
Teachers tend to not make English intelligible." (of course!)

Bilingual Education

That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students.

Concurrent translation is not the method used to teach ESL.

jillio · 09-15-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

My friend, that is not how it works at the BiBi program where I work at.

This research u got is talking about translation using spoken languages..nothing about Deaf ed there...

Have u ever worked in a BiBi program before?

That comment about "saying something in English and then translating it into the native language" has nothing to do with ASL and English.

I think u are referring to spoken English and other spoken languages..using both in the classroom which sounds more of a Total Communication approach. If I am correct, then yes that would show why TC programs do not work at all. Too confusing for the students.

In the BiBi approach, we do not do anything like this research described in the classroom...that just sounds so much like a TC approach.

You are using research done on hearing kids to criticize Deaf education. Last year, 3 of my students' reading levels went up 2 grade levels in one year. If that's not success, then I dont know what your definition of success is. To me, that is successful.

U have to keep in mind...many students who are in BiBi programs do not have a strong first language to begin with coming from other programs that failed them further delaying them so without a strong first language, it is very very difficult for any kid to tackle on a 2nd language and literacy skills.

We do try our best with our unique population of kids. These Spanish-speaking kids mentioned in this research already had a strong first language which is Spanish. Big difference.

Just keep that in mind when u think of "failures"

Exactly. Concurrent translation is not a method used in Bi-Bi education.

faire_jour · 09-15-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Concurrent translation has been a failure and linguists have been saying it's NOT effective. They say that the best to learn language is to SOAK into it, not translate this statement to other language back and forth.

"There is one method that has been found to be completely detrimental to language development and it is called "Concurrent Translation." This method is implemented in a fashion where the instructor will say something in English and then immediately translate it into the native language or vice versa."

Alternatives to Bilingual Education

Other research supporting the idea that concurrent translation is NOT favorable:

Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review More Effective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition?

"Concurrent Translation Programs:

Teachers shifts between languages to communicate each idea. (sounds like Bi-Bi)
Concurrent translation programs are wide spread. (yeah Bi Bi)
Researchers have discredited concurrent translation programs. (of course)
Children often ignore the second language. (duh!)
Teachers tend to favor one language or the other, usually not developing both languages. (of course!)
Teachers tend to not make English intelligible." (of course!)

Bilingual Education

That's exactly what ASL Bi-Bi education is.. it's a failure. It doesn't work for many deaf students.

This is not at all what my daughter's bi-bi school looks like. They don't just translate from English to ASL all day. How who they even do that? With SEE? Are you kidding me??
They use ASL to teach written English (and spoken when desired). THey don't SimCom or translate back and forth. That is ridiculous.

shel90 · 09-15-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

This is not at all what my daughter's bi-bi school looks like. They don't just translate from English to ASL all day. How who they even do that? With SEE? Are you kidding me??
They use ASL to teach written English (and spoken when desired). THey don't SimCom or translate back and forth. That is ridiculous.

Like I said, what Netrox is describing sounds more like Total Communication approach which has proved to not generate higher literacy skills in deaf/hoh children.

Lile I said before, until people have actually seen or worked in a BiBi program for a substanial period of time, they do not have a clue what they are talking about when they make claims about it.

09-06-2008, 11:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 1,070	BiBi success stories. The media is very biased. I am sick to death of hearing about success stories about deaf people being given CI's etc etc... Since I don't think the media are likely to print too many BiBi or sign language success stories I'd like to invite Signing Deaf people to let me know about their own successes in this thread. I'm particularly interested in those who were raised with a BiBi approach. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

09-06-2008, 11:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bottesini Elf Assassin Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Sneaking up behind you Posts: 5,833 Blog Entries: 2	Johnson, Liddell, and Erting's 1989 proposal, "Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving access in deaf education" this is when BIBI first became well known. Bilingual Deaf Resources Above is a link about the subject. Isn't it only about 3% in use in deaf ed? Also too new to have much known about its success? __________________ AllDeaf

09-06-2008, 11:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 1,070	Thanks for your response and link. Yes I do know BiBi in education is fairly new but there has always been Deaf people who were brought up by their Deaf parents or parents like Jillo who were dedicated to teach their deaf children signing from beginning. So Although the BiBi aproach is new, I think fortunately there have been Deaf raised with Signing from start. I'm sure they are successes out there. In fact I know of signing Deaf man who won Deaf Achievers award 1992 when I was put up for that. He was a sailor and when there was a storm he took over boat and helped other hearing sailors get to shore. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

09-13-2008, 12:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
dreama deafblind vegan Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: England Posts: 1,070	Come on people. There MUST be success stories out there. If they aren't brought forward then all people get to read about is the same old pro CI propaganda. __________________ I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. http://www.fightfoca.com/

09-13-2008, 08:35 AM	#7 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 16,119 Blog Entries: 1	I can see the evidence of success thru my students...those who have been in the BiBi program since they were babies are doing a lot better than those kids who were referred to our program from TC and oral programs. __________________ ~Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

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

09-13-2008, 10:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
jillio Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,163	There is also historical eveidence of success. Prior to the oral revolution, even though it wasn't called bi-bi, deaf education employed the same philosophies and methodologies of bi-bi. Deaf students were educated on par during that period. We began to see problems with the education of deaf students when the oralists took over.

09-15-2008, 06:18 PM	#17 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 16,119 Blog Entries: 1	Until many of you actually worked as a Deaf ed teacher using a wide range of teaching methodologies, u really have no idea. If u want to call this or that a failure, then why dont u all become teachers and tackle on the literacy problems in Deaf children if u have such a strong opinion of what works and what doesnt work? Remember, we have to think what works for the majority not just for a select few. __________________ ~Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

09-15-2008, 06:30 PM	#19 (permalink)
shel90 Sun Whorshipper Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A Desert Rat that has found herself in Maryland Posts: 16,119 Blog Entries: 1	Netrox, before I became a teacher...or even enrolled in the Deaf ed program, I used to think because the oral-only approach was the most successful only because I could read and write on par with my hearing peers. After completing my grad coursework in Deaf Ed and language acquistion and being a teacher in different Deaf ed programs, I was dead wrong about my beliefs. If the CS approach worked for you, great but for many others, it didnt work just like the oral-only approach worked for me (or so they said) but failed so many others so I cant use what worked for me to apply to a population of children. I have to see what proved to the most successful and most accessible for the majority and that was what I saw with the BiBi approach which is why I strongly believe in it. The TC approach didnt work because of, like that research or artice you posted state, concurrent translation. __________________ ~Shel~ "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana