SEE is a language... It's English...

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Problem with research. You have to support all of the null hypothesis before you can find support for the hypothesis.:giggle:
Click to expand...

Hehe yes, but I thought this article was ground breaking based on how people spam link it. Not another one of those supporting research articles that shows what it is NOT. See what I mean? However, it has a great introduction that has a lot of mini summaries of other research articles that I can look into.
 
jillio said:
Hey, you are the one that keeps misinterpreting it. I'm not responsible for your failure to comprehend the research findings. You are not even allowing for the different levels of literacy and the cognitive implications of each in your interpretation.
Click to expand...

OK, so you asked what Marschark would do with his deaf child, and I provided his answer to that question, not mine. What do you think Marschark would do with his deaf child?
 
Mountain Man said:
Why do you suppose that is, and what do you think we should be doing about it?
Click to expand...

Marshark answered that in the research I posted.:giggle: I just posted additional research from another group that indicates that language is specific only to two of the levels of literacy.
 
GrendelQ said:
OK, so you asked what Marschark would do with his deaf child, and I provided his answer to that question, not mine. What do you think Marschark would do with his deaf child?
Click to expand...

He'd definately use ASL as the L1 language. I don't imagine he would do that if he did not see the definate benefits in having ASL as the L1 language for deaf childen.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Hehe yes, but I thought this article was ground breaking based on how people spam link it. Not another one of those supporting research articles that shows what it is NOT. See what I mean? However, it has a great introduction that has a lot of mini summaries of other research articles that I can look into.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You need to take it further than this article. That is my whole point. Any research article like this should just be the starting point for questions and additional research.
 
Mountain Man said:
What? SEE was created with the express purpose of teaching Deaf children to read and write. It was never intended to be a substitute for sign language.

And I'm certain that Jillio holds no ill will towards you or your family. She is simply correcting your false assertion that SEE is a language.
Click to expand...

That is what i thought you were saying. :)
 
GrendelQ said:
Both great questions. I don't know. And for my daughter, we're making choices that we think will work against what this research shows, in her case. Not claiming they will work for your child, or anyone else's, but we're openly sharing the results of what we find, good or bad. So far, astonishingly great.
Click to expand...

Here's the point I'm getting at: a Deaf child will always benefit from attaining sign language fluency. Also, a Deaf child who is fluent in ASL stands a much higher chance of attaining some mastery of the English language. This is the "magic solution" you say doesn't exist. Any discussion concerning the development and education of Deaf children (and this includes those with cochlear implants) should always start with sign language fluency.
 
Mountain Man said:
Here's the point I'm getting at: a Deaf child will always benefit from attaining sign language fluency. Also, a Deaf child who is fluent in ASL stands a much higher chance of attaining some mastery of the English language. This is the "magic solution" you say doesn't exist. Any discussion concerning the development and education of Deaf children (and this includes those with cochlear implants) should always start with sign language fluency.
Click to expand...

Well said. There is never an instance in which ASL fluency has shown to produce negative effects on literacy or language development.
 
jillio said:
Neither SEE I nor SEE II were ever intended as communication methods or for lanaguage acquisition. They were intended as teaching tools specific to English grammar.
Click to expand...

SEE (Signing Exact English) was created to allow those who were DHH to acquire English naturally, through face to face interactions both visually and auditorily (for those that have some residual hearing). The purpose was to address the needs of DHH students to acquire English naturally and develop proficiency in it.
 
CSign said:
SEE (Signing Exact English) was created to allow those who were DHH to acquire English naturally, through face to face interactions both visually and auditorily (for those that have some residual hearing). The purpose was to address the needs of DHH students to acquire English naturally and develop proficiency in it.
Click to expand...

You are very, very confused. The only way to acquire a aural audiory language naturally is to be exposed to it naturally from the time of birth. You can't used something manufactured that doesn't even meet linguistic requirements for a language in the natural language acquisition process.:roll:

If a kid has not begun the acquisition process before they start school, there is no way that they will acquire language then. Best you can hope for is to teach language, which is not the same thing as acquiring language at all. In fact, that is why so many deaf kids have severe language delays.:roll:

Seriously, you need to start making sure you have all the information you need before posting something silly like this.
 
jillio said:
You are very, very confused. The only way to acquire a aural audiory language naturally is to be exposed to it naturally from the time of birth. You can't used something manufactured that doesn't even meet linguistic requirements for a language in the natural language acquisition process.:roll:

If a kid has not begun the acquisition process before they start school, there is no way that they will acquire language then. Best you can hope for is to teach language, which is not the same thing as acquiring language at all. In fact, that is why so many deaf kids have severe language delays.:roll:

Seriously, you need to start making sure you have all the information you need before posting something silly like this.
Click to expand...

Given the comments on the contrary, I called The SEE Center to clarify it's original purpose. The response I got was exactly what I've posted. It was intended as a way to allow DHH children the ability to acquire English naturally.

When it is used properly it does allow for a deaf child to acquire English naturally, as it represents English in it's entirety. It boils down to the ability of the individual expressing the information accurately. If the individual hasn't made a commitment to learning and using SEE, then the Childs acquisition of English will suffer. If used consistently and accurately, the child will acquire English naturally and likely won't have any language delays.
 
KristinaB said:
This is all so over my head.
Click to expand...

you know you can completely ignore this thread and not come back again. this would save you a whole lotta headache, ya know?
 
CSign said:
Given the comments on the contrary, I called The SEE Center to clarify it's original purpose. The response I got was exactly what I've posted. It was intended as a way to allow DHH children the ability to acquire English naturally.

When it is used properly it does allow for a deaf child to acquire English naturally, as it represents English in it's entirety. It boils down to the ability of the individual expressing the information accurately. If the individual hasn't made a commitment to learning and using SEE, then the Childs acquisition of English will suffer. If used consistently and accurately, the child will acquire English naturally and likely won't have any language delays.
Click to expand...

question for you - since ASL is not dependent on English in order to learn ASL.... how about SEE? Is SEE dependent on one to know English beforehand?
 
CSign said:
Given the comments on the contrary, I called The SEE Center to clarify it's original purpose. The response I got was exactly what I've posted. It was intended as a way to allow DHH children the ability to acquire English naturally.

When it is used properly it does allow for a deaf child to acquire English naturally, as it represents English in it's entirety. It boils down to the ability of the individual expressing the information accurately. If the individual hasn't made a commitment to learning and using SEE, then the Childs acquisition of English will suffer. If used consistently and accurately, the child will acquire English naturally and likely won't have any language delays.
Click to expand...

Then the SEE center doesn't know any more about language acquisition than you do.:laugh2:

Sounds like a bunch of advertising boohoo.

SEE has never been shown to prevent or to remediate language delays.

The Cued Speech Center says a lot of crap that isn't true either. Like CS being used as a communication method when it's intent was to help with phonologocial awareness in literacy.

You need to stop using links like this for your education and delve into the real stuff if you want to come across as knowing what you are talking about.
 
jillio said:
Then the SEE center doesn't know any more about language acquisition than you do.:laugh2:.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you seem to think that only you, and a select group of individuals are capable of higher learning and understanding?
 
For anyone who is interested, here is the link to the SEECenter. Read some of the stuff on the website, and you will SEE why I don't give it a whole lot of validity when it comes to the issues we have been discussing in this thread.

Home

Anyone want to attend a skills workshop for $385.00?
 
CSign said:
SEE (Signing Exact English) was created to allow those who were DHH to acquire English naturally, through face to face interactions both visually and auditorily (for those that have some residual hearing). The purpose was to address the needs of DHH students to acquire English naturally and develop proficiency in it.
Click to expand...


:hmm: I have see/read all of the comments in this thread and the only conclusion I have is children benefit from a natural language, the earlier the better. I just don't see SEE as a beneficial tool to teach written English. SEE is a tool of the auditory focused. SEE is used to teach spoken English.

There are good arguments in support of SEE until you compare them with the arguments for using ASL. Why settle for good when you can have the best?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top