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

Reba said:
Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

American Deaf people were literate in English a loooong time before SEE was invented. :whistle:
Click to expand...

Yes, many were and are. But unfortunately, there are many deaf students who don't achieve literacy. On average, prelingually deaf readers graduate from high school with reading skills comparable to hearing third and fourth graders.
 
Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

So, was the literacy problem solved by the introduction of SEE?

Nope.
 
Reba said:
Wirelessly posted (BB Curve 9300)

So, was the literacy problem solved by the introduction of SEE?

Nope.
Click to expand...

I don't really know that, I'm not familiar with the history of SEE and whether or not those who use it experience better results than those who don't. You say nope -- do you know of studies that show SEE users don't experience better literacy results than those who use some other system for reading? My daughter uses a Wilson-based system called Fundations (It's more commonly used for typical hearing kids in the lower 30th%, but several deaf schools and some mainstream programs are using it for their average-advanced kids, too, with some success). I've looked, but haven't found significant studies that show any one approach is better than the other for deaf kids, but would love to see anything you come across.
 
JMH said:
I'm still not sure why SEE isn't considered a language. But it's still communicating language. If SEE isn't language, then it's not communicating language. It doesn't make sense.

I was in same boat as VamPyroX - I grew up learning SEE but I started using PSE later in my life. In fact, I skipped a grade when I was in Jr. High school (CSDR) because it was too easy for me and I could have skipped another grade if I stayed there bit longer. However, I left there to get better education in mainstreaming school.

I tried to read some interpreter that signed strong ASL, I could not understand her and I had to reminder her to sign PSE. It seems that I rather learn anything in straight English than expression/picture/imagery language (aka ASL).

There is nothing wrong with people preferring certain sign language – SEE, ASL, PSE, and etc… as long as they understand each other while communicating.
Click to expand...
In the education system, I used SEE (MSS). Most of my deaf friends used ASL. I never knew anything about SEE, MSS, ASL, etc. To me, it was just... "sign language". So, I never knew if I was signing right or wrong. I just signed the way my teachers signed and my friends signed.

After graduating high school, I went to college and had ASL interpreters. I didn't even know they were ASL interpreters. Yes, they signed differently than the interpreters I had in school while growing up, but i still understood them.

It wasn't until I went to RIT when I finally realized what ASL, PSE, and SEE meant. I was making a request for interpreters for my classes when they asked me what kind of interpreter I wanted. I just told them "sign language". They still kept asking. That's when it was determined that I was PSE.

Turns out that without separating the two, I ended up learning SEE and ASL at the same time and mixed them up.

It wasn't until 5 years after than when I found out what MSS was until I ran into one of my elementary school interpreters and she told me about it.

I understand ASL from most people, but there are different kinds of ASL. I think that how ASL is used is similar to how spoken English is used... among different groups. So, who signs the correct ASL?

In your case, you probably had a person who didn't sign ASL properly or did sign ASL properly (and you weren't used to it). :dunno:
 
VamPyroX said:
In the education system, I used SEE (MSS). Most of my deaf friends used ASL. I never knew anything about SEE, MSS, ASL, etc. To me, it was just... "sign language". So, I never knew if I was signing right or wrong. I just signed the way my teachers signed and my friends signed.

After graduating high school, I went to college and had ASL interpreters. I didn't even know they were ASL interpreters. Yes, they signed differently than the interpreters I had in school while growing up, but i still understood them.

It wasn't until I went to RIT when I finally realized what ASL, PSE, and SEE meant. I was making a request for interpreters for my classes when they asked me what kind of interpreter I wanted. I just told them "sign language". They still kept asking. That's when it was determined that I was PSE.

Turns out that without separating the two, I ended up learning SEE and ASL at the same time and mixed them up.

It wasn't until 5 years after than when I found out what MSS was until I ran into one of my elementary school interpreters and she told me about it.

I understand ASL from most people, but there are different kinds of ASL. I think that how ASL is used is similar to how spoken English is used... among different groups. So, who signs the correct ASL?

In your case, you probably had a person who didn't sign ASL properly or did sign ASL properly (and you weren't used to it). :dunno:
Click to expand...
Yes, part of the problem is the educational system being very fuzzy about what is being used in the schools. I've met many deaf people who insist that they are signing ASL when it's clear that they are signing PSE with a lot of English signing mixed in. They tell me that their teachers and interpreters told them in school that they were signing ASL, so that was it, end of story, regardless of whether or not the teachers and terps knew what they were talking about.

There is no consistency about what the public schools use; no set of standards. Even when a school hires an ASL trained, RID certified terp, that doesn't mean that's what the child will get. Example: Senior terp in a mainstream public school has worked in the system for many years, since the heyday of SEE. She has seen other junior terps come and go. School hires another junior terp, a recent ITP grad and RID certified. Senior terp is "the boss" and tells junior terp that ASL is all well and good in theory but her way is PSE/English, and the new terp needs to adjust to that. After some struggles to assert herself, the new terp either finally gives in or quits at the end of the year and works as an ASL community terp.

That is a true story, repeated more than once. School politics are involved.

The formal teaching of sign language to students is, well, non-existent. Students are expected to learn on the fly. Can you imagine the uproar if English was taught that way? Compare how many years of English speech, reading, writing, spelling, literature, composition, poetry, grammar, etc., the K-12 student is exposed to, to what the average deaf student gets for ASL language instruction. Uh, huh.

Do the deaf students get introduced to deaf adults, watch videos of historical deaf figures, learn about DPN and the history of deaf education in America, including the years of segregation, the establishment of the deaf community, including organizations such as NAD and their own insurance company, or read the biographies of famous deaf people? How much time do they use for ASL vocabulary building and story telling skills? Do they study signing linguistics and compare and contrast SEE (in all its forms), signed English, PSE, ASL, variations due to era, region, sex, age, social status, and race? Do they have opportunities to study the sign languages of other countries, including how they were developed? I've never seen it but if some schools are doing those things, great.
 
Quotes from the study/link above:

"...SEE, a monolingual, bimodal option for communication in English, has been documented empirically as the first language of many
deaf children in such studies as those of Luetke-Stahlman and her colleagues (e.g., Luetke- Stahlman & Moeller, 1990; Luetke-Stahlman & Nielsen, 2004), as well as others (Schick & Moeller, 1992). In addition, after completing a literacy-focused investigation, Mayer and Akamatsu (2000) concluded that a first language can be developed using an English-based sign system. The creators of SEE and proponents of the system (Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993) believe that if family members, TODs, and speech–language pathologists (SLPs) sign grammatically accurate English, deaf acquiring it. With such visual access, children\ have an opportunity to develop age-appropriate receptive and expressive English, which in turn supports their reading achievement
in English...

As reviewed previously, Luetke-Stahlman (1988a) compared the English language and literacy abilities of deaf students who used SEE with those of other groups of deaf children exposed to six different instructional inputs. In addition to the data collected on how language instruction was addressed in each school program, information on the reading curriculum was collected from the teachers through a survey, including responses to questions on the following reading instruction-related topics: materials used for reading instruction, how new
vocabulary was taught, and procedures used to collect data on story comprehension. The author noted ―a high-degree of similarity in reading curriculum across programs‖ (p. 359) and provided examples of the similarities (e.g., all used basal readers). Student achievement on the Passage Comprehension subtest of the W-J (Woodcock & Johnson, 1977) served as the dependent variable for reading in this study. Results were that participants in programs representing grammatically complete input (Group A) were significantly better readers (p < .001) than
those who represented inputs for which the grammar was incomplete (Group B). In addition, SEE participants (n = 26) significantly outscored all other groups on passage comprehension.
Schick and Moeller (1992) found that 13 deaf students (aged 7–14 years) using SEE since age 3 acquired and internalized some of the most complex rules of the syntactic structures in English and that that knowledge supported their reading development. Participants were profoundly
deaf based on the unaided reported PTA and had no additional handicapping conditions. The researchers stated that SEE served as an input for the native language learning of English for these students. Several standardized English language and reading tests were administered to the participants. Results were that, ―In comparison with their hearing peers in both vocabulary
and reading, these students scored within normal limits‖ (p. 324). The authors continued, ―From a functional perspective, the performance on standardized reading tests reveals that these participants appeared to have sufficient English skills to serve as a foundation for the acquisition of reading‖ (p. 332).
Based on a search of the research literature, the most recent study published focused on SEE users and their literacy achievement was Luetke-Stahlman and Nielsen (2003). The participants were 31 unaided profoundly deaf students aged 7–17 years, participating in three school programs committed to the use of SEE. The students had normal intelligence and no additional handicapping conditions; none used cochlear implants. The researchers collected information regarding the TODs‘ ability to sign SEE, as well as background information (i.e., gender,
ethnicity, SES, parent ability to sign, and speech intelligibility). Standardized English language and reading measures, normed on hearing children, were administered. Passage comprehension results were analyzed by Pearson correlations, and Marasciulo categories for examining strength of correlations were applied. Statistical analysis found that deaf students who had been
enrolled in an SEE program 5 or more years (the ―Longer Exposure‖ to SEE group) read at significantly higher grade levels than the deaf students exposed to SEE for 2 years or less (the Shorter Exposure Group). The Longer Exposure to SEE group could manipulate phonemes (segmenting, blending, deleting, and substituting them); provide synonyms, antonyms, and analogies of read words and phrases; and read more words on the word lists than the Shorter Exposure Group..."

That is just a snapshot of what the study says. I would suggest reading the entire study as you have time if you are interested in learning more.
 
This addresses why SEE was created, who created it etc.

"...As an outgrowth of ―the continuing concern about low levels of literacy and other academic skills attained by most deaf students‖ and ―an attempt to teach deaf children the language that would be used in schools‖ (Marschark, Schick, & Spencer, 2006, p. 9), manually coded invented sign systems were developed. SEE (Gustason et al., 1973), the sign system of focus in this paper, is one such system. The first manual English system, Seeing Essential English or SEE 1 (referred to today as Morphemic Sign Systems or MSS) was designed by David Anthony, a deaf teacher,
with input from a team of deaf educators and the parents of deaf children (Gustason, 1990). The other members of the team viewed SEE 1 (MSS) as inadequate. As a result, Gerilee Gustason, a deaf woman and educator, and other members of the original SEE 1 (MSS) team developed Signing Exact English (Gustason et al., 1973), initially referred to as SEE 2, but now simply as SEE. Gustason (1990) delineated the rationale for the invention of SEE as not only due to dissatisfaction with the educational achievement of children with a hearing loss and a desire to use the English language in education but also due to the increasing knowledge of English language development of hearing children and research as to the inability of speech reading to access the grammar of spoken English. At the time of the creation of SEE, research documented that deaf children acquired a smaller vocabulary than their hearing peers. In addition, deaf students‘ understanding of the morphological and syntactical rules of English was weak when compared to the understanding and clear pattern of development of their hearing peers..."
 
For starters:

CSign said:
...The creators of SEE and proponents of the system (Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993) believe that if family members, TODs, and speech–language pathologists (SLPs) sign grammatically accurate English, deaf acquiring it. With such visual access, children\ have an opportunity to develop age-appropriate receptive and expressive English, which in turn supports their reading achievement in English...
Click to expand...
The more complete section quoted:

...The creators of SEE and proponents of the system (Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993) believe that if family members, TODs, and SLPs sign grammatically accurate English, deaf children will have access to authentic English, which allows them access to acquiring it. Without such visual access, it seems logical that deaf children may not develop age-appropriate receptive and expressive English. If students are provided grammatically correct input in English via SEE coupled with reading instruction in elementary school that gives explicit attention to morphology, we believe that students who are deaf or hard of hearing can develop reading proficiency to the same level as their hearing peers. There is clearly a need for more research on this topic.
 
Reba said:
For starters:


The more complete section quoted:

...The creators of SEE and proponents of the system (Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993) believe that if family members, TODs, and SLPs sign grammatically accurate English, deaf children will have access to authentic English, which allows them access to acquiring it. Without such visual access, it seems logical that deaf children may not develop age-appropriate receptive and expressive English. If students are provided grammatically correct input in English via SEE coupled with reading instruction in elementary school that gives explicit attention to morphology, we believe that students who are deaf or hard of hearing can develop reading proficiency to the same level as their hearing peers. There is clearly a need for more research on this topic.
Click to expand...


So, did you read the whole study? :hmm:

Of course there is a need for more research on this topic... There is always a need for more research...
 
CSign said:
So, did you read the study? :hmm:
Click to expand...
Yes. It doesn't answer the original question that was posed.

If others want to read and study it in its entirety, they can click your original link and not try to decipher the choppy excerpts.
 
Wirelessly posted (Blackberry Bold )

The part that baffles me about the "SEE teaches proper English" is that it's a lot like proposing that German speakers should teach English by re-ordering German into English grammar models - which is just bizarre.
 
Anij said:
Wirelessly posted (Blackberry Bold )

The part that baffles me about the "SEE teaches proper English" is that it's a lot like proposing that German speakers should teach English by re-ordering German into English grammar models - which is just bizarre.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

What other source language creates a third pseudo language in order to teach the target language?
 
you know, what pisses me off, its the obsession with normalcy, like 'normal range' only to the hearies preferance, where did it ever say that equal wiegh FROM Deaf people NOT hearing researchers!! to say if they are comfortable with the findings, you never do.

words like normal range, in comparison,


The creators of SEE and proponents of the system (Gustason & Zawolkow, 1993) believe that if family members, TODs, and speech–language pathologists (SLPs) sign grammatically accurate English, deaf acquiring it. With such visual access, children\ have an opportunity to develop age-appropriate receptive and expressive English, which in turn supports their reading achievement
in English...

in the bold, well the problem is, to train hearing teachers costs are high not only in terms of dollars but TIME, and to add to the value of time is excessively it is not only teacher's specialised training takes huge amount of time to leart SEE , but also the students...and by the time they 'acquired SEE' the language acquistion period in the developmental area is already fading fast...WHAT A WASTE OF TIME...ASL's campers win here again, best to teach in Native Sign about WHAT is English structure.
YOU CAN'T put a Visual access in as a hearing invention on what is the Deaf way, hearing DONT experience deafness...you cant sign grammatically accurate English, but you can teach to WRITE grammatically accurate English,...what is more important??

Subjects like Chemistry in classroom are never in the same mode of 'english' as 'use of english' are in classroom involving Maths!...that's the thing...these hearing kids are Native English speaker they innatelely knows how to operate their peusdo-linguistic areas in the brain, the SAME CANT NOT BE said for SEE, BUT it CAN be Said for ASL....or any native sign languages for that matter.

As reviewed previously, Luetke-Stahlman (1988a) compared the English language and literacy abilities of deaf students who used SEE with those of other groups of deaf children exposed to six different instructional inputs. In addition to the data collected on how language instruction was addressed in each school program, information on the reading curriculum was collected from the teachers through a survey, including responses to questions on the following reading instruction-related topics: materials used for reading instruction, how new
vocabulary was taught, and procedures used to collect data on story comprehension.

Research are always partial to the theory is supposedly to test out. you can get another research documents from the opposite theoretical camp and it will say 'accurately why it does not work;...both sides do get doctored up, always. it is just a form of institutional control to justify an imposition by the way of rationalising its systematic intent.
 
American Sign Language (ASL)

"American Sign Language (ASL) is…a visual language, not a spoken language. One or both hands are used to make signs, and meaning depends on visual components such as shape of the hands, the space in which the sign is displayed, orientation of the hand when signing, and the movement of the hands… ASL is a language distinct from English. Therefore, it has its own grammar and syntax (rules for arranging words to form meaningful sentences and phrases). In ASL words are not represented in English word order… Like all living languages, ASL is continually evolving. New signs representing new vocabulary are added, while outdated signs fall by the wayside. This makes it possible to express anything in ASL that can be expressed in English." (1)


Signed English

"As the name implies, the purpose of Manually Coded English (MCE) systems is to 'translate' spoken English into manual signs. That is, these systems are not distinct languages as ASL is. Instead, the signs for words are represented in the same order as in English, and invented signs are used in some systems to convey tenses, plurals, possessives, and other syntactical aspects of English. The conceptual base of ASL, however, is maintained in most of these sign systems. The most commonly used systems of Manually Coded English are Signed English, Seeing Essential English (SEE I), Signing Exact English (SEE II), and Contact Signing… Someone who uses one system can often communicate fairly easily with someone who uses another." (2)

Cued Speech

"Cued Speech is a system of using handshapes to supplement speechreading. These handshapes are phonemically based—that is, they are based on the sounds the letters make, not the letters themselves. Cued Speech is comprised of eight handshapes that represent groups of consonant sounds, and four positions about the face to represent groups of vowel sounds. Combinations of these hand configurations and placements show the exact pronunciation of words in connected speech, by making them clearly visible and understandable to the Cued Speech recipient. Cued Speech allows [a person] to ‘see-hear’ precisely every spoken syllable that a hearing person hears." (3)

Auditory-Oral

"This approach encourages children to make use of the hearing they have (called residual hearing) using hearing aids or cochlear implants. Speechreading, sometimes called lipreading, is used to supplement what’s detected through residual hearing. In this approach, children learn to listen and speak but do not learn sign language…"(4) "Further, this ability is best developed in an environment in which spoken communication is used. This environment includes both the home and classroom." (5)
 
Wow I had no idea, when I originally created this thread, that it would flame up so much conversation/debate/opinion/research.

I also just came to a conclusion from all this that it isn't SEE I use. I don't actually sign every word of English. If I did that it would take forever to complete a sentence. Someone mentioned PSE. I believe that's more of the way I structure my signs.
 
NaLa said:
Wow I had no idea, when I originally created this thread, that it would flame up so much conversation/debate/opinion/research.

I also just came to a conclusion from all this that it isn't SEE I use. I don't actually sign every word of English. If I did that it would take forever to complete a sentence. Someone mentioned PSE. I believe that's more of the way I structure my signs.
Click to expand...

Well, welcome to Internet. It's like that all over Internet - people will debate on anything, no matter what kind of subject it is.
 
I think SEE or PSE (albeit unknowingly) is more of a grammar tool than it is a language. While both are not true ASL, their intentions are made to help the native user of the opposite language connect with the language they're trying to work with.

The original intent of SEE is to help native signers follow the hearing structure of English grammar, and that appears to be the only purpose. This would work in institutional context where the primary language is written or reading english, which are often in educational settings.

The incarnation of PSE seems to be the (side effect) of oral users learning ASL grammar, and in a way might help them on the transitioning. It can also work in other uses, but I feel the main intention is used for those learning sign or when in dual oral-sign environments.

As for the whole deal of SEE/PSE not being a language, it's the same as if you (assuming you are are well-versed in native English) were to learn a foreign language such as Spanish, Tagalog, or Russian, for example.

When a US citizen starts learning foreign languages, they are more than likely constructing sentences that make sense to them in English grammar, but with Spanish/Tagalog/Russian words. To native users of the foreign language, the individual's grammar is going to be off, but they would be able to understand the intention. They just won't see the individual as a fluent communicator.

That is the same case with ASL; until the grammatical context is understood, users will always be seen as a foreign 'user'. SEE/PSE has the same downside. If they want to be accepted or rise up, they have to attain fluency. It appears to be same construct with foreign societies.
 
Jane B. said:
Which prompts another question for me as someone that only knows English. How do you teach English grammar, including word order and endings when going from ASL to English? If my understanding is right, ASL does not have ing, ed, and other word endings for tense etc.
Click to expand...

That's what I am doing...teaching English through ASL...it was done over a hundred years ago and it worked. It is working now.

The problem lies with deaf children not having access to language at home when their families don't learn ASL.
 
Back
Top