I get the fact that my child accesses language differently than my younger son who is hearing, or any other hearing person for that matter. I understand he best receives information visually. That is why I've given it to him visually. He also does receive some auditory benefit with his HA's on. With the language he has he is able to put together pieces of the puzzle if he missed/misunderstood a word if someone is only speaking to him. That is because he has a solid understanding of English.
To all of the nay sayers out there... Please tell me how the mode of communication we have used is outdated or ineffective when my child has more than proficient English skills? Please explain to me how if our goal was to effectively communicate, and for him to not fall behind in English (which he is expected to master) how is that wrong? We have more than achieved those goals! We can communicate with or without HA's, and with or without voice. How is it faulty if he is a success?
Jillio, you've referenced studies that say that TC/SEE is outdated and ineffective. I'd be interested in seeing them. They won't change what I'm doing, but I'm always open to additional information.
In terms of SSS/Sim-com I learned about that in my son's early years when I was doing my research. I didn't go into this, and make decisions without educating myself first.
TC is somewhat a catch all phrase. I do use sim-com as a part of Total Communication. TC refers to many things including the use of auditory, sign, pictures, and fingerspelling. Which ever us appropriate at any given time. The fundamentals of my communication with my child are sign/voice i.e. Sim-com. And if a person is willing to commit, they can achieve a level of fluency in speaking and signing at the same time without compromising the integrity of the language.
Use PSE/CASE with a child who is establishing their language skills you are setting them up for failure.
I said it before, and I'll say it again... My child acquired meaningful language because he had complete and ongoing access to it. It seems many of you are placing value judgements upon "which language is better." I've never done that, nor will I do it. Both SEE/English and ASL are equally valuable and equally important. Thats my word and I'm sticking to it. So there ;-)
Firstly, regarding the question you asked about mode of communication: Do you know the history of SEE I or SEE II? They were never intended as modes of communication.
Re: regarding fluency in Sim-Com...can you support that with evidence? And again, Sim-Com is used for the convenience of the hearing signer, not the deaf person receiving the sign.
Re: English and ASL are equally important, and if you want to throw SEE in there as well, fine. However, they are intended for different purposes. You would not use a shoe to fry an egg, would you? No doubt the egg would still be cooked (reaching the goal), but would no doubt be extremely unappetizing. A hungry child, having been deprived of real food for a long time, would no doubt eat that egg. But if they were given a choice of an egg cooked in a vessel that was intended to cook an egg, they would no doubt by-pass the shoe cooked egg.
Do you mind a question? How old is your son? What testing and what criteria has a professional used to support your claims that his use of English is advanced to the degree that you claim it is? Has he had a formal language assessment? There are many many more aspects to fluency than simply expressing needs and wants and being able to read a sentence with an average degree of comprehension.
Do you have any understanding of linguistics or cognitive psychology? Have you, in your research, read anything at all relating these topics to the deaf? This is not a challenge, but a true question.
English has evolved as a spoken language intended to address the needs of a hearing population. Even in it's written form, it is processed in the brain as a spoken language. The brain processes auditory stimuli in a very different way than it processes visual stimuli. That is apparent in the difference in syntax between English and ASL. ASL evolved to address the visual processing needs of the deaf. Any language evolves to address the needs of the population it serves. English for hearing with it's linear syntax because the brain processes auditory stimuli in a linear way. ASL with a time oriented, spatial syntax because the brain processes visual stimuli spatially. This is something that has been known by cognitive psychologists for many, many years. This is the foundation for all of the studies done in cognitive psychology in regard to the deaf and the most efficient way to present information for their processing style. When you attempt to put a linear syntax to spatial information, it confuses the brain. That is what you are doing when you sim-com, or when you attempt to use SEE in either variation for communication. Visually, the brain will still process what is being received in a spatial format. That distorts the message. That is obvious when one tries to write in ASL syntax. Written languages are a mode of the spoken version of that language, so they are processed as auditory information. When you write the syntax of a visual, manual language, it is obvious that the brain cannot process it properly because it is attempting to process that which is spatial in a linear way. The very reason that "Store go me" makes no sense when it is written down. Your brain is processing a spatial syntax from a linear perspective because it is used to processing written language the same way it processes the spoken mode of the same language. Conversely, when you sign "I am going to the store." the brain processes it in a spatial way even though it is not in a spatial syntax. It is just as confusing as the other way around.
If you are truly interested in learning more about the way a deaf child processes language, and the inherent risks in using SEE as a communication method, I would suggest you start with Deafness and Child Development; a very interesting text by Kathy Meadows, one of the premier researchers into this very topic. It was written in 1979, which supports my claim that as far back as 1979, we have scientific evidence of the failure of SEE to address the communication needs of a deaf child. However, since you have already determined that nothing will change your mind, I have doubts that you are open minded enough to actually make use of any new information you find. Therefore, I will not bother with more than one reference. It would be a waste of both our times.
Again, this is not a criticism, but the issue is not just giving him a visual component to language. It is presenting that visual component in a way that allows the brain to intuit meaning without creating obstacles.
