Is it really so bad to know SEE (Sign Exact English?)

[shel90]

Shel, I have repeatedly answered variations on your question in this thread: I do not think that using a coded system -- or any teaching approach you want to throw at me -- is the only way for deaf children to learn to read or to acquire language, if you want to broaden it beyond the scope we were addressing (literacy).

In fact, I have in my signature a quote from Marc Marschark that I completely agree with that underscores this belief with every post I make..

No, you didnt answer my question. What's that..."variations?. It is either you answered my recent question or you are avoiding it.

Language is the only way for Deaf children to learn how to read and write.

Coded systems arent languages and shouldnt be used as the absent of a language.

Hearing kids learn about their world through language and deaf children should have the same opportunities.

I think Reba said it best...why invent a system to make acquiring language more difficult?

 

[shel90]

Isn't that the same order you said you took with your children, too?

No...I used ASL with my son from the get go.

With my daughter, I made the HUGE mistake of not signing in ASL with her.Instead I SIM-Commed...BIG MISTAKE on my part, but I learned from my mistake and didnt repeat it with my son.


I only have two children.

I never supported the philosophy of SEE first and then ASL later.

 

[CSign]

No, you didnt answer my question. What's that..."variations". It is either you answered my recent question or you are avoiding it.

Language is the only way for Deaf children to learn how to read and write.

Coded systems arent languages and shouldnt be used as the absent of a language.

Hearing kids learn about their world through language and deaf children should have the same opportunities.

I think Reba said it best...why invent a system to make acquiring language more difficult?

Yet Reba clearly has minimal real life experience with SEE, which is clear from her posts. That last statement is false.

 

[GrendelQ]

I don't understand the disconnect. Your question:

Do you support the idea of using those coded systems as the only way for deaf children to acquire language without ASL being present?
...

My answer:

...
I do not think that using a coded system -- or any teaching approach you want to throw at me -- is the only way for deaf children to learn to read or to acquire language, if you want to broaden it beyond the scope we were addressing (literacy).

In fact, I have in my signature a quote from Marc Marschark that I completely agree with that underscores this belief with every post I make.

 

[shel90]

Yet Reba clearly has minimal real life experience with SEE, which is clear from her posts. That last statement is false.

From Reba's post

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to make the language learning process any more difficult than it is.[/B]

 

[GrendelQ]

From Reba's post

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to make the language learning process any more difficult than it is.[/B]

The English language learning process IS difficult for deaf kids who don't have access to sound and don't have a 1 to 1 mapping of one mode to the other. The goal is to find ways that work best for each child to make it easier.

Are you opposed to Visual Phonics?

 

[shel90]

Are you opposed to Visual Phonics?

If it is used as the only means to aquire a first language, yes.

Otherwise, if used as a tool not as a replacement to ASL, I am not opposed to it.

 

[shel90]

I don't understand the disconnect. Your question:



My answer:

I was asking in specific WITHOUT ASL being present. Your answer is too vague.

So, am I correct that you dont support the use of coded systems without a child acquiring language through ASL?

 

[GrendelQ]

If it is used as the only means to aquire a first language, yes.

Otherwise, if used as a tool not as a replacement to ASL, I am not opposed to it.

No, I mean in the context we've been discussing here, as a literacy tool: to teach reading and writing English.

Why are you not opposed to it ? It has some of the same features as SEE EXCEPT that it does not use ASL vocabulary or directionality, emotion, inflection, as SEE does. Unlike SEE, it has unique cues based on sounds, not orthography.
"Visual Phonics puts into perspective not only the written form of language but the real power of language, which is sound." I'm surprised you prefer this sound-based system to a visual system.

 

[GrendelQ]

I was asking in specific WITHOUT ASL being present. Your answer is too vague.

So, am I correct that you dont support the use of coded systems without a child acquiring language through ASL?

Seriously? With or without ASL, same answer. We are talking about learning to read and write English, though, so it's not me making it broad or vague, it's you.

...
I do not think that using a coded system -- or any teaching approach you want to throw at me -- is the only way for deaf children to learn to read or to acquire language, if you want to broaden it beyond the scope we were addressing (literacy).

In fact, I have in my signature a quote from Marc Marschark that I completely agree with that underscores this belief with every post I make.

 

[shel90]

No, I mean in the context we've been discussing here, as a literacy tool: to teach reading and writing English.

Why are you not opposed to it ? It has some of the same features as SEE EXCEPT that it does not use ASL vocabulary or directionality, emotion, inflection, as SEE does. Unlike SEE, it has unique cues based on sounds, not orthography.
"Visual Phonics puts into perspective not only the written form of language but the real power of language, which is sound." I'm surprised you prefer this sound-based system to a visual system.

I am not opposed to SEE as a teaching tool either.

I am opposed to the idea of it being used as a language for language development in young children. That seems to where the misunderstanding keeps occurring.

However, I feel in the educational system, there are always many tools being used with deaf children which is fine but unfortunately, they end up getting misused by many hearing parents as a way for deaf children to acquire language.

 

[shel90]

Seriously? With or without ASL, same answer. We are talking about learning to read and write English, though, so it's not me making it broad or vague, it's you.

I asked if you support it as language development and you are saying that we are talking about learning to read and write English. Two totally different issues which is why it was easy to get confused.

 

[shel90]

No wonder the message got lost in all these several posts.

SEE as a...

Teaching tool, yes.

Language for language development, no.

 

[GrendelQ]

The unique situation here is that deaf children without access to sound can't learn effectively to read and write from the spoken form

You asked me to show you where so I will grant your request. Here is where you gave me the impression. Deaf children without access to sounds use ASL, correct so is that what you are implying? That they are unable to learn English because they cant hear or because they are ASL users?

No, you have misunderstood. I wrote that "deaf children without access to sound can't learn effectively to read and write from the spoken form, hence the use of a signed mode of that language to make it accessible" -- you can't expect a deaf child without access to sound to learn to write by hearing oral cues the same way hearing children learn, he needs to be taught to read and write differently, via a visual system, visual cues.

Typically you would learn a written mode of a language, such as Greek, from its spoken form, learned first. The unique situation here is that deaf children without access to sound can't learn effectively to read and write from the spoken form, hence the use of a signed mode of that language to make it accessible. ASL is not English, and doesn't have a grammar that matches that of English, so it can't be used for a one to one mapping onto English. Or Greek.

 

[shel90]

No, you have misunderstood. As you quoted, I wrote that "deaf children without access to sound can't learn effectively to read and write from the spoken form" -- you can't expect a deaf child without access to sound to learn to write by hearing oral cues the same way hearing children learn, he needs to be taught to read and write differently, via a visual system, visual cues.

Hearing children also learn to read and write from visual cues...by being exposed to written English which is reading.

Deaf children also learn that way.

I had none of these coded systems used with me to learn to read and write English.




Which is why many of your statements continue to confuse many of us. I dont know why you put that there in the first place? We all know that deaf children dont have full access to English in the spoken form...yea, and?

We were talking about SEE and many of us opposed it being used for language development.

 

[GrendelQ]

Hearing children also learn to read and write from visual cues...by being exposed to written English which is reading.

Deaf children also learn that way.

I had none of these coded systems used with me to learn to read and write English.




Which is why many of your statements continue to confuse many of us. I dont know why you put that there in the first place? We all know that deaf children dont have full access to English in the spoken form...yea, and?

We were talking about SEE and many of us opposed it being used for language development.

Shel, no one in this discussion was talking about acquiring SEE as "a first language." SEE is a tool for teaching literacy, one of several in use with deaf children today. The merits of using SEE as a teaching tool to learn to read and write English were being discussed. I don't use it with my daughter, but others do and have with their children, some successfully, some not so successfully. Read back through the thread -- it's all about literacy.

 

[GrendelQ]

Hearing children also learn to read and write from visual cues...by being exposed to written English which is reading.

Deaf children also learn that way.
...

Hearing children start to learn to read by having books read aloud to them while simultaneously tracking the pictures and the words on the page that correspond to the words being said aloud.

To learn to read English, a hearing child must figure out the relationship between sounds and letters, learning the connections between approximately 44 sounds of spoken English (the phonemes), and the 26 letters of the alphabet.

Deaf children learn differently. You know this. If not, there would be no reason to have schools for the deaf, teachers of the deaf.

 

[Journey]

If I may interject here ... Do not both deaf and hearing children learn to read and write by associating letter combinations with a specific concept? Don't both use visual cues - where one associates it with an image and the other a image and/or a sound?

 

[CrazyPaul]

You know that SEE was created by a deaf academic at Gallaudet to provide a system for teaching deaf students learn to read, right?

So what? It doesn't mean that it's useful or successful.

 

[GrendelQ]

If I may interject here ... Do not both deaf and hearing children learn to read and write by associating letter combinations with a specific concept? Don't both use visual cues - where one associates it with an image and the other a image and/or a sound?

yes, although the input or cue is different: a hearing child is matching a sound to a letter/word on the page, while a deaf child doesn't have access to that sound, so with these teaching systems like Visual phonics or SEE, there's instead a visual cue, not an auditory cue, there's a visual representation of the concept instead of an auditory representation to match to a letter or word on the page.