Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

And the concept of layered curriculum is more readily addressed through a Bi-Bi approach than any other approach in deaf ed. Why? Because while students indeed to possess differrent learning preferences, the information must be able to get in before it cqn be processed and used.
 
rockdrummer said:
More re-enforcement that each child is different and the teaching styles should be adjusted.
Click to expand...

Jillio already did a good response, but want to add that bi-bi and TC programs as a last resort for deaf students, not oral programs, clearly shows problems with facilicating student centered learning in oral deaf education.

Oral deaf education, bi-bi or TC are not specific teaching styles but modes of communication.
 
jillio said:
Kind of like talking about a 1950's radio program when you really meant to refer to a piece of literature with a title that in no way resembled the title of the radio program? I find reference to an invasion by aliens when one meant to refer to political treatise a protrayal in what really doesn't know.

Perhaps if you really were informed about Cued Speech you would be able to answer such questions rather than attempting to avoid them.
Click to expand...

Now I got it! Loml is a clever ASL activist. Wow, no one has been so succesfull with turning people away from an oral deaf education tool as loml on AD. :bowdown:
 
flip - Your statements paint a clear picture of your naivity regarding the integration of Cued Speech within deaf education.
 
flip said:
Jillio already did a good response, but want to add that bi-bi and TC programs as a last resort for deaf students, not oral programs, clearly shows problems with facilicating student centered learning in oral deaf education.

Oral deaf education, bi-bi or TC are not specific teaching styles but modes of communication.
Click to expand...
With all due respect flip, I'm not sure I understand or agree with those statements. It looks like you are saying that there are problems with facilitating student centered learning in bi-bi and TC programs? Please correct me if I have mis-understood that. Also I think that each of those approaches can be considered teaching styles. At least with my limited knowledge I would consider them as such.

Education consists of much more than language. Requiring language in order to learn is a given. The purpose is to point out the fact that one size doesn't fit all in educational approaches which has been re-enforced by the information I have provided amongst other things. That is not to say that within a given program kids will or wont do well. There are successes and failures in all programs. Even kids within a specific program will advance at different rates. This happens to hearing kids too. The importance of language aquisition can't be understated but there is much beyond aquiring language that should be considered.

Personally, I like the idea of brain based learning. I also like the idea of fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style. I subscribe to the theories that suggest to use different approaches in order to stimulate the mind. One might even argue that could apply to learning language as well. To me fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style would be a true IEP.
 
rockdrummer said:
More re-enforcement that each child is different and the teaching styles should be adjusted.
Click to expand...

Rockdrummer, while I was reading all these different methodologies of teaching before reaching the part about the layered curriculm, I was thinking that I do a little bit of all in my classroom. When I read about the layered curriculm, I can say that I use the layered curriculm or methodology with my class. It sounds like I am using beginning "B" layer.

Thanks for sharing this. I learned something new today. :)
 
rockdrummer said:
With all due respect flip, I'm not sure I understand or agree with those statements. It looks like you are saying that there are problems with facilitating student centered learning in bi-bi and TC programs? Please correct me if I have mis-understood that. Also I think that each of those approaches can be considered teaching styles. At least with my limited knowledge I would consider them as such.

Education consists of much more than language. Requiring language in order to learn is a given. The purpose is to point out the fact that one size doesn't fit all in educational approaches which has been re-enforced by the information I have provided amongst other things. That is not to say that within a given program kids will or wont do well. There are successes and failures in all programs. Even kids within a specific program will advance at different rates. This happens to hearing kids too. The importance of language aquisition can't be understated but there is much beyond aquiring language that should be considered.

Personally, I like the idea of brain based learning. I also like the idea of fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style. I subscribe to the theories that suggest to use different approaches in order to stimulate the mind. One might even argue that could apply to learning language as well. To me fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style would be a true IEP.
Click to expand...


I also like the idea of brain-based learning too. I will look more into it at my work.

I have always been a firm believer of meeting each child's learning style so reading all that made me realize that I am already doing that! LOL! I could improve, of course. :)
 
loml said:
rockdrummer - One of the reason that I support Cued Speech is the fact that it is muti-model and muti-sensory. We are all a combination of learning types/styles. Deaf/hoh and hearing children benefit from intergation of the Cued Speech system into their learning.
Click to expand...
Thanks loml. I know for a fact that CS has it's place and has helped where other stratigies have failed. That's not to say that it's for everyone just as I don't believe any one program is for everyone. That's the point to this thread. One size doesn't fit all. I like the concept of programs that offer options and taylor the stratagy to the students learning profile.
 
rockdrummer said:
Thanks loml. I know for a fact that CS has it's place and has helped where other stratigies have failed. That's not to say that it's for everyone just as I don't believe any one program is for everyone. That's the point to this thread. One size doesn't fit all. I like the concept of programs that offer options and taylor the stratagy to the students learning profile.
Click to expand...

I agreed, same here.
 
shel90 said:
Rockdrummer, while I was reading all these different methodologies of teaching before reaching the part about the layered curriculm, I was thinking that I do a little bit of all in my classroom. When I read about the layered curriculm, I can say that I use the layered curriculm or methodology with my class. It sounds like I am using beginning "B" layer.

Thanks for sharing this. I learned something new today. :)
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
I also like the idea of brain-based learning too. I will look more into it at my work.

I have always been a firm believer of meeting each child's learning style so reading all that made me realize that I am already doing that! LOL! I could improve, of course. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Shel and I too have learned much from it. I’m sorry but I meant to say Brain based teaching in my previous post and not brain based learning. Of course learning is brain based. *whacking myself

Actually in the layered curriculum approach, the “B” layer is the second layer. Not the beginning layer. The layers are in reverse order where layer “C” is first, then “B” and lastly “A”. I find it funny that the experts have the A, B C’s backwards.

Also as I understand it, Student-Centered instruction, Differentiated Instruction, and Layered Curriculum are all brain based teaching strategies.

To me the conclusion is compelling. They say it allows teachers to give every child a special education but I believe it allows them to give every child an individualized special education. What I would consider a true IEP.
Conclusion

Research has made it clear that that there is not any one "best" way to deliver instruction. Some objectives are better met when student-centered approaches are used while others may need a more teacher-centered approach. The fact that educators need to be able to "read and flex" with the differing needs of their students is irrefutable. Today, more than ever, with all of the high stakes testing and accountability measures, teachers need to possess a large repertoire of instructional approaches. Layered Curriculum may be the closest thing yet to that magic formula that educators are so frantically searching for. After all, it allows teachers to "give every child a special education" (Nunley, 2004).
Click to expand...
 
shel90 said:
I also like the idea of brain-based learning too. I will look more into it at my work.

I have always been a firm believer of meeting each child's learning style so reading all that made me realize that I am already doing that! LOL! I could improve, of course. :)
Click to expand...

Agree with you, RD, and flip. Brain based learning is a valuable strategy. Only by knowing how the brain perceives,l processes, and comprehends to meaning the information provided can we address the specific needs of the students.

There is always room for improvement. But from what I know of your program and teaching style, I would venture to say that you are far ahead of most.
 
jillio said:
But from what I know of your program and teaching style, I would venture to say that you are far ahead of most.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree because some bi bi program(s) use voice and mouth moments in their teaching style program. I find that more benefits for the deaf children than without the use of voice and mouth moments. so that any deaf children can use both and could able to switch between the two, because of that every deaf child has different needs. of course that's in my opinion.

I'm sure Shel90 is good at what she does as a teacher, I'm not speaking of her personally. I'm only stating the teaching style to accommodate the needs of deaf students.
 
Cheri said:
I respectfully disagree because some bi bi program(s) use voice and mouth moments in their teaching style program. I find that more benefits for the deaf children than without the use of voice and mouth moments. so that any deaf children can use both and could able to switch between the two, because of that every deaf child has different needs. of course that's in my opinion.

I'm sure Shel90 is good at what she does as a teacher, I'm not speaking of her personally. I'm only stating the teaching style to accommodate the needs of deaf students.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of Shel personally. I was commenting on her personal teaching style, and the methodology she uses. And shel does use mouth movements, and voice is used with English. So the student does have the opportunity to switch between the two and practice all skills.
 
jillio said:
And shel does use mouth movements, and voice is used with English. So the student does have the opportunity to switch between the two and practice all skills.
Click to expand...

She does? from what I've been reading I was told it was impossible. :confused: You guys confused me, I need something strong to drink. :beer:
 
Cheri said:
She does? from what I've been reading I was told it was impossible. :confused: You guys confused me, I need something strong to drink. :beer:
Click to expand...

No, it is not impossible to use mouth and lip movements with ASL. That is where everyone got confused, me included.
 
jillio said:
Can't be sure without clarification. I thought loml actually meant "War and Peace" when he said "War of the Worlds", but it turns out he actually meant "Animal Farm".
Click to expand...
Put each of your choices in the context of the scentence and it should become evident which was intended.
 
Back
Top