Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
You make valid points about communication but nobody is suggesting an oral only environment.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
And at what point in a childs development would you include such rehabilitation?
 
rockdrummer said:
Cheri you have made some very compelling points which are re-enforced in the article I provided. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Click to expand...

Which article? Can you tell me what post number I'm on sidekick and it takes forever to reload AD. :(
 
Cheri said:
Which article? Can you tell me what post number I'm on sidekick and it takes forever to reload AD. :(
Click to expand...

Aw poor you :hug: and I know the feelings :lol: the very very first postie sis :D
 
Cheri said:
:confused:

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

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.
 
rockdrummer said:
And at what point in a childs development would you include such rehabilitation?
Click to expand...

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.
 
rockdrummer said:
You make valid points about communication but nobody is suggesting an oral only environment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jillio said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

. 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.
Click to expand...
If that was so true then tell me why bi bi program is not as popular as oral and TC? Humm?
 
jillio said:
TC is simultaneous exposure.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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

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.
Click to expand...
 
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

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.
Click to expand...
 
rockdrummer said:
You are killin me man. Hearing victim? :rofl: Are you Flip Wilson? Remember him? A very funny man. How about this. Why not say "I am deaf so if you want to communicate with me then you will have to face me when you speak". Then the victim says, "But you can speak so well, that must mean you can hear". :giggle:
Click to expand...

:ty: I don't know that Flip, I wear thongs in summer, that's where my Flip is from!

Remember a tv-show, where a white guy put some black shoe polish on his face to understand racism better. Of course people shunned away for other reasons than racism. But could be fun to do something similar with deafness. Massive ear phones, gestures and breathing helium prior to talking to the victim. LOL.
 
Cheri said:
I disgree speaking is as important as signs, why limited communication there's no one better than the other. I don't think deaf people should rely solely on signs and not speech. The speech may not be perfect for some deaf people, but it should be good enough to communicate so that they can be comfortable in both worlds.

A bilingual approach supports development of ASL as a child's first language, with development of English as a second languaage I don't agree because speech is not requirement with that approach.

Total Communication (TC) includes use of all modes of communication—sign language (ASL or manually coded English) spoken language and that's why I like TC approach better than Bi-Bi approach.

the methodology chosen would not be frustrate to the deaf child if learn speech and signs the same time, if they learn signs and not speech, they'll be delaying in speech or will not have no speech skills at all or will have diffculties to be understood. I don't agree with focusing on spoken language alone, but signs should be added as important as well as speech should be.
Click to expand...

I can imagine that speech is equally important to many deaf people. If one have no other deaf friends, speech must be really important. You sure have a very valid point here, my reason for putting ASL over speech is of course due to my background and my current situation, and I understand you perfect, thanks for clarifying.

But I am not sure if TC will result in better speech than bi-bi, propably it's the opposite. Research are pointing in a direction where those best in speech and oral communication, are those who are most fluent in sign language. It's also interesting that hearing students have thrived and enjoyed bi-bi programs for deaf. Speech is part of all bi-bi programs, but one can get thru them without speech skills. I have been told that 10 percent of the whole population can't lipread, high or low IQ. Wouldn't it be risky to find out who lacks this skill after a couple of years in a TC program?

To me, TC are more widespread because it's less accurate, anything goes, and it's easier to employ people that fit, as one don't have to know ASL. Parents often also feels the promises of TC is more concurrent with their worries and hopes than bi-bi. But that's just my impression.
 
Cheri said:
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.


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

A TC environment generally does not employ terps. That would be a mainstream environment with accommodations. A TC environment would be a deaf classroom where sim-com is used. It looks like we are talking about 2 different environments. Regarding Bi-Bi not being as popular...it is a rather new concept, and it takes time and effort to convert from oral and TC. There are many different reasons for this, and none of them have to do with advantages for the deaf child, but more social and administrative reasons.
 
rockdrummer said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't individualize without a foundation. That is the basic problem with deaf education in the mainstream now. If they weren't applying a specific methodology, then they weren't functioning as a TC environment. You have to have a methodology to adapt to the individual. Otherwise, the teachers are flying by the seat of their pants, and students go undereducated.
 
rockdrummer said:
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
Click to expand...

Exactly....used as a safety net for students who cannot acquire oral skills. Don't you see the difference therefore, between a true Bi-Bi atmosphere and a TC educational philosophy? Well, we'll try this, and if it doesn't work, we'll try that, and then maybe throw some of this in there, and then some of that. In the meantime, precious time is being wasted while we experiment with deaf children's education. And, again, according to your definition as supplied by the article, it is manual English, not sign that is employed. Therefore, it is instruction in an orally based language only, even if it is in a visual mode.
 
rockdrummer said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that a child needs to have adequate language exposure to a language that is readily acquired, and therefore, allows them to develop the cognitive processes that are dependednt upon language. In that way, they have been habilitated to use language as a skill. They are capable of using language as a thought process, not just a means of verbal communication. Once that has been accomplihed, they can be rehabilitated to transfer those skills to speech.
 
Back
Top