Start with spoken language or ASL? - Page 14

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Lets stick to the reality of the situation, shall we?

My question has a purpose. It is to see if you believe that a deaf child having higher oral skills would make a difference in how s/he should be taught. If you believe that it does not make a difference, then bi-bi would work for them too, right? I'm striving for an ideal world. In a school, there is a minimum baseline in terms of development of a student based on their age/grade. However, some kids advance to the next grade. This school ALLOWS them to, because their method allows a minimum level of progression but does not have a maximum. This allows BOTH the general population and advanced kids to progress at their own individual rate. I'm trying to apply the same concept to the development of deaf children. Maybe I'm being naive, but at least Im thinking about it rather than automatically pointing one specific method.

10-02-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

We aren't talking about all cases. We are talking about a majority of cases. If you don't want your deaf child in a bi-bi environment, don't enroll them in a bi-bi school. But also be willing to accept all the consequences of your decision.

where is the evidence that supports your claim? There aren't enough bibi schools and/or programs available to make it a viable option and lets not forget that some that claim to be bibi really are not. Consequences? Really? Your crystal ball works better than mine?

10-02-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

My question has a purpose. It is to see if you believe that a deaf child having higher oral skills would make a difference in how s/he should be taught. If you believe that it does not make a difference, then bi-bi would work for them too, right? I'm striving for an ideal world. In a school, there is a minimum baseline in terms of development of a student based on their age/grade. However, some kids advance to the next grade. This school ALLOWS them to, because their method allows a minimum level of progression but does not have a maximum. This allows BOTH the general population and advanced kids to progress at their own individual rate. I'm trying to apply the same concept to the development of deaf children. Maybe I'm being naive, but at least Im thinking about it rather than automatically pointing one specific method.

Anyone that limits pedagogy to a single approach is really doing more of a disservice especially when there is insufficient evidence to prove that it works for the majority. The viability of the claims really are not a sufficient foundation for such an argument.

sirena rossa · 10-02-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdeafsowhat

I suppose I could say that SEE is the way to go if you failed the spoken language. SEE will help your spoken language greatly, because it is exact english.

while i personally do not know SEE, that does seem to be the better choice when it comes down to SEE vs. ASL. if SEE if closer to spoken english then it will help the childs comprehension of it. ASL, it seems to me, would actually further confuse them since placement of words and grammar structure is different.
almost like english vs. spanish (or even french) where its like adjective/noun vs. noun/adjective. (for example "green tea" vs. "te verte" - i.e. tea green)

dreama · 10-02-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

huh? insulting? OK What I'm referring to is a person who cannot see at all. A COMPLETE loss of eyesight. Obviously a blind person cannot read nor write (but very difficult!) english. Same for a deaf person cannot hear nor speak (but very difficult!)

You are wrong. Have you never heard of Braille. Braille is a system of raised dots that is based on the printed language with contractions for short cuts but blind people CAN read.

There is (or was) a machine called an opticon which turned print from books into tactile print for blind to feel with their fingers.

Deafblind people often rely on writing on palm of hand the way I do with people who don't know the deafblind manual.

Some blind people can even learn tactile sign language. Although due to the missunderstandings that this method is not possible for us, often a deafblind person gets denied the chance to learn.

I was orally raised (with a mild hearing loss that progressively got worse) but I find having a good grasp of written english far more useful as a deafblind person then having speach.

I could manage without speech at all but I could never manage without written english.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Reality check. Profoundly deaf child. Less than fluent ASL model by the parents will lessen the exposure to rich fluent langage to the child. Add to that the lack of ubiquity in programs offering ASL and the inability (for whatever reason) of immediate family and peers to be fluent signers. Don't you believe that would result in language delays?

My son's 3 year old friend is a perfect example of proving this wrong.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirena rossa

imdeafsowhat, i totally applaud ur statements! (esp. whats bolded) and i agree with a lot of what u said, it reflects my own opinion as well. I don't think this thread should be locked either because we all ARE learning different things here. I am new to this forum and the main reason why i joined was cuz i don't really know many deaf people (except for one my best friends who was raised 100% oral like me, mainstream, etc.) And i wanted to see the flipside of the coin. AND to show others MY p.o.v. on topics. everyone's lives and experiences are different. I didn't even really know for sure what SEE was till this forum. As of now, it seems like SEE is more versatile and probably gives a deaf child a better understanding of what the spoken English language is like. Which sounds like a much better option to have the child learn.

Regarding the topic of starting with spoken language vs. ASL, this is my own personal view: I think that if u start with teaching the child ASL only, then it becomes a crutch. Then when u go to teach the child speech, it will only be more difficult for them to comprehend because they already know ASL and its easier, so pffft why bother learning the more challenging one? thus the child becomes pretty limited in means of communication with everyone. Now, if u start with spoken language - the more challenging option. It will be easier to learn (assuming the child has the capability cuz i do realize that in some cases the actual degree of the hearing loss is a huge factor) and THEN learn ASL or SEE. then the child won't be limited AND will have a much better understanding of what speech is like than if s/he started off with just ASL. And I know quite a few speech therapists who will agree with me on that.

Not true.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 07:48 PM

I just realized that language delays are hard to define when you have nothing to compare it to. Most people believe that deaf children will never have the same rate as hearing people in every aspect of development (including speech). So why bother comparing to hearing people. When people say that they have learned ______ fine (whether it is language, speech, writing, so on), maybe they don't realize that if they did something differently they may have developed it sooner. Language delays for deaf people is too hard to define since we have nothing to compare it to, or do we?

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

Why is everyone assuming that trying out spoken language takes a long time? You can't even try one month? Just one measly month to test out the capabilities? I know Jillio will say "Even one month has repercussions!" How about a week?

Is it safe to assume that no one thinks its worth taking advantage of a deaf child's high lipreading/oral skills? Is it simply because "Well, if s/he has such high skills for speaking, s/he will eventually talk anyway, so what's the problem?"

Even hearing kids do not develop spoken language in one month. Takes years.

dreama · 10-02-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Maybe for you but I know two deaf guys who grew up ASL who are engineers at IMB in New York City. Like I said, it has never been proved that ASL has limited deaf people as many of my friends proved all the stereotypings out there wrong.

Thanks for sharing. When I started my thread on BiBi success stories that was the kind of success that I was looking for. Maybe I just used the wrong words but I'd be very greatful if you could repost about your friend's successes on that thread too.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Not true.

Would you say not true ALWAYS? Or not true MOST of the time? Or not true sometimes?

10-02-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

My son's 3 year old friend is a perfect example of proving this wrong.

OK.. I agree there are always exceptions to the rule. I consider myself an exception to the rules in many ways. We should talk about what is best based in individual circumstances. Deaf kids born to non-signing hearing parents vs deaf kids born to deaf native signers.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

While that may work for some there really is not enough evidence or studies that suggest it's best in all cases. The notion that there is one best way to educate a deaf child is false. I am not saying that bibi is right or wrong. Just that for some taking the english / spoken language route first may yield success just as it might for some to learn ASL first. There is no silver bullet.

Just like there are some success with hearing kids and spoken language exposure. Never know which hearing kid would be successful with spoken language or some other language.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Even hearing kids do not develop spoken language in one month. Takes years.

I said testing the abilities, not the actual development. It seems to me that my speech therapist (who is also an audiologist) has a high rate in terms of getting her clients mainstreamed by kindergarten. It can't be just luck.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:55 PM

[QUOTE=dreama;1112282]I totally agree with this. The problem as I see it is that when people start with speech and only go on to signing when that is failed the child misses out valueble learning time so of course when they eventually do get taught ASL there language is bad as they were oral rejects.

They are now finding benifits of using baby signs with everyone including hearing babies so it makes more sense for deaf babies to be given baby signs then progress to ASL, after which they can learn written and spoken english.

Incidently I view written english as being more valueble as a deafblind person in communicating with the outside world. If a person has written english they can use pen and paper, mobile etc... and communicate with anybody anywhere.

If a person is language deprived from learning speech and only semi literate that person is going to end up not being able to communicate so well. Particularly if they have failed to pick up speach but sometimes even if they are an 'oral success' but still have difficulties in communicating their needs.[/QUOTE]

Everything you have said has been said over and over again. Oh well but you do have the idea where I am coming from.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirena rossa

while i personally do not know SEE, that does seem to be the better choice when it comes down to SEE vs. ASL. if SEE if closer to spoken english then it will help the childs comprehension of it. ASL, it seems to me, would actually further confuse them since placement of words and grammar structure is different.
almost like english vs. spanish (or even french) where its like adjective/noun vs. noun/adjective. (for example "green tea" vs. "te verte" - i.e. tea green)

Ok, let's use spoken English using ASL syntax.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I just realized that language delays are hard to define when you have nothing to compare it to. Most people believe that deaf children will never have the same rate as hearing people in every aspect of development (including speech). So why bother comparing to hearing people. When people say that they have learned ______ fine (whether it is language, speech, writing, so on), maybe they don't realize that if they did something differently they may have developed it sooner. Language delays for deaf people is too hard to define since we have nothing to compare it to, or do we?

If a child doesnt know the different between boy and girl at the age of 8 or older. Pretty easy to identify that the child has language delays.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

OK.. I agree there are always exceptions to the rule. I consider myself an exception to the rules in many ways. We should talk about what is best based in individual circumstances. Deaf kids born to non-signing hearing parents vs deaf kids born to deaf native signers.

My son's friend was born to hearing parents who knew nothing about Deaf culture nor ASL. This girl just wrote her brother's name without any prompts.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I said testing the abilities, not the actual development. It seems to me that my speech therapist (who is also an audiologist) has a high rate in terms of getting her clients mainstreamed by kindergarten. It can't be just luck.

And if speech is the only goal for success , great for her!

Jillo and I are talking about much more than just speech.

10-02-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Just like there are some success with hearing kids and spoken language exposure. Never know which hearing kid would be successful with spoken language or some other language.

Exactly, nobody has a crystal ball. There is no controversy surrounding how to educate a hearing child or which language they should learn first. No compare and contrast that against the controversy surrounding how to educate a deaf child. Its not easy no matter how you slice it. I also believe it's irresponsible for anyone to suggest that one way is better than another for the majority of deaf kids without proof supported by the educational community.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

If a child doesnt know the different between boy and girl at the age of 8 or older. Pretty easy to identify that the child has language delays.

You're talking about severe language delays...

"Jillo and I are talking about much more than just speech. "

Are you saying that its possible for a deaf child who has excellent speaking skills to have horrible writing and language skills? That seems... rare?

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

You're talking about severe language delays...

"Jillo and I are talking about much more than just speech. "

Are you saying that its possible for a deaf child who has excellent speaking skills to have horrible writing and language skills? That seems... rare?

There is more to than just having good speech and I have seen evidence of it such as abstract thoughts, cognitive processing, problem solving skills, and etc. I think Jillo mentioned all those things plus some more in another post. Those factors are what we look into when we talk about language development. Speech is not the end result. Maybe in your and other's views, it is.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Exactly, nobody has a crystal ball. There is no controversy surrounding how to educate a hearing child or which language they should learn first. No compare and contrast that against the controversy surrounding how to educate a deaf child. Its not easy no matter how you slice it. I also believe it's irresponsible for anyone to suggest that one way is better than another for the majority of deaf kids without proof supported by the educational community.

ASL is a language

Spoken English is a language

teaching methods are a different subject.

We are talking about language arent we?

I think Wokuma said it best in another post that every human has the innate ability to acquire language.

The question should be is how accessible is the language to the child?

This is not about teaching strategies..

So if you want to say that some deaf kids are successful with ASL then it is safe for me to say that some hearing kids are successful with Spoken English. Same logic.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

There is more to than just having good speech and I have seen evidence of it such as abstract thoughts, cognitive processing, problem solving skills, and etc. I think Jillo mentioned all those things plus some more in another post. Those factors are what we look into when we talk about language development. Speech is not the end result. Maybe in your and other's views, it is.

You make it sound like I love my own voice or something. This is how I look at it. You can have excellent cognitive skills, excellent problem solving skills, excellent writing skills. All without saying a THING. However, I find it hard to believe that it works the other way around. A deaf child who has excellent speaking skills right off the bat, it seems to me they are more likely to have good developmental skills in everything else. No?

**Cheri** · 10-02-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

where is the evidence that supports your claim? There aren't enough bibi schools and/or programs available to make it a viable option and lets not forget that some that claim to be bibi really are not. Consequences? Really? Your crystal ball works better than mine?

Exactly!!! Thank you.. I luv ya!!

Only bi-bi programs I know are California School for the Deaf in Fremont, Indiana School for the Deaf, The Learning Center in Massachusetts, Texas School for the Deaf in Austin, Maryland School for the Deaf, Cleary School for the Deaf in Nesconset, New York, Arizona School for the Deaf in Denver, Sign Talk Children's Center in Winnipeg. That's all I know where they are at, If bi bi is a successful program for the majority of deaf children, why aren't there more???

I am gonna be blunt with people here, Research reveals that there is NO one approach has been proven to be more effective than another approach.

**Cheri** · 10-02-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockdrummer

Exactly, nobody has a crystal ball. There is no controversy surrounding how to educate a hearing child or which language they should learn first. No compare and contrast that against the controversy surrounding how to educate a deaf child. Its not easy no matter how you slice it. I also believe it's irresponsible for anyone to suggest that one way is better than another for the majority of deaf kids without proof supported by the educational community.

!!!!

I'm so glad there's someone who has brains on this forum.

**Daredevel7** · 10-02-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I am gonna be blunt with people here, Research reveals that there is NO one approach has been proven to be more effective than another approach.

I agree with you Cheri. Thats why I started this post with a very specific case. However, even with the specific case, there's still most likely no ONE approach. But at least this thread tries to get people to think about a variety of options. At least I hope!

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

Exactly!!! Thank you.. I luv ya!!

Only bi-bi programs I know are California School for the Deaf in Fremont, Indiana School for the Deaf, The Learning Center in Massachusetts, Texas School for the Deaf in Austin, Maryland School for the Deaf, Cleary School for the Deaf in Nesconset, New York, Arizona School for the Deaf in Denver, Sign Talk Children's Center in Winnipeg. That's all I know where they are at, If bi bi is a successful program for the majority of deaf children, why aren't there more???

I am gonna be blunt with people here, Research reveals that there is NO one approach has been proven to be more effective than another approach.

Ok, then we should investigate what approach of spoken language works and doestn work for hearing children.

ASL is a language..

Spoken English is a language

teaching strategies are different approaches in the classroom.

ASL and Spoken English are not teaching strageties.

sirena rossa · 10-02-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Deaf babies will often babble vocally, as well. Is that an idication that they will develop spoken language skills on par with their hearing peers? How long do we wait to see if language develops? In the past, the reccomendation has been the age of 2.5 years. If they haven't begun to show indications of developing age appropriate oral language by that age, then start to investigate why. That is 2.5 years without linguistic input that allows the child to acquire and internalize language. For that 2.5 years, you will need at least 5 years remediation work to bring them to age level speech production. In the meantime, they are constantly playing catch-up, so there is no time to tend to the developmental tasks they should be completing. It is a circular effect that never ends.

Now, if you can show me a way to insure, from the very beginning, that the child has the potential to function in an oral only environment to the degree that they aren't experiencing deficits that lead to language gaps, I will be glad to see that.

Please allow me to clarify something that i have actually failed to mention in these posts. These deaf children that i use in examples, MUST have binaural amplification (i.e. hearing aids) or cochlear implants (or both). Both hearing and deaf babies do babble, yes. If the deaf baby is fitted with HA/CI, then it is VERY important to reinforce speech!! because how do hearing babies learn to speak? by babbling and repeating whats said to them. As soon as the deaf baby - WITH HA/CI - begins this phase, the better!
The way to insure this, Jillio, would be to have that child implanted with fitted with hearing aids AS SOON as they're diagnosed with a hearing loss. and making sure theyre getting the BEST out of their hearing instrument.... otherwise what was the point of getting it?
Now, if this child does NOT have a CI or HAs, then yeah.. ASL is the way to go with him/her.
if the kid does indeed have some kind of amplification in the ears, then... USE the hearing s/he has. learning to truly USE that hearing, and to its fullest, really is in the best interest of the child.

**shel90** · 10-02-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daredevel7

I agree with you Cheri. Thats why I started this post with a very specific case. However, even with the specific case, there's still most likely no ONE approach. But at least this thread tries to get people to think about a variety of options. At least I hope!

By using language that isnt fully accessible to deaf children and may put them at risks for language delays? Great! I am all for it.

10-02-2008, 07:55 PM	#405 (permalink)
shel90 Let It Snow!!!! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A place where crabs are popular Posts: 40,303 Blog Entries: 3	[QUOTE=dreama;1112282]I totally agree with this. The problem as I see it is that when people start with speech and only go on to signing when that is failed the child misses out valueble learning time so of course when they eventually do get taught ASL there language is bad as they were oral rejects. They are now finding benifits of using baby signs with everyone including hearing babies so it makes more sense for deaf babies to be given baby signs then progress to ASL, after which they can learn written and spoken english. Incidently I view written english as being more valueble as a deafblind person in communicating with the outside world. If a person has written english they can use pen and paper, mobile etc... and communicate with anybody anywhere. If a person is language deprived from learning speech and only semi literate that person is going to end up not being able to communicate so well. Particularly if they have failed to pick up speach but sometimes even if they are an 'oral success' but still have difficulties in communicating their needs.[/QUOTE] Everything you have said has been said over and over again. Oh well but you do have the idea where I am coming from. __________________ "Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it." --- Anonymous

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

10-02-2008, 07:48 PM	#398 (permalink)
Daredevel7 Adrenaline Junky Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 4,341	I just realized that language delays are hard to define when you have nothing to compare it to. Most people believe that deaf children will never have the same rate as hearing people in every aspect of development (including speech). So why bother comparing to hearing people. When people say that they have learned ______ fine (whether it is language, speech, writing, so on), maybe they don't realize that if they did something differently they may have developed it sooner. Language delays for deaf people is too hard to define since we have nothing to compare it to, or do we?