Start with spoken language or ASL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Byrdie714 said:
Uhmmm....

Question: if oralists on here are dead against teaching ASL with deaf children, then why are hearing parents teaching ASL to their hearing children before spoken language?

That is a contradiction right there. :roll:
Click to expand...

Egostical..thinking that English or having oral skills is superior to ASL.
 
jillio said:
Well, first, they must understand the importance of language to the development of cognitive process. Then we can discuss with them, why, for the deaf child, ASL addresses those needs better than an oral only method.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer the doctors/audiologists/teachers to say something along the lines of:

"Generally speaking, the best thing you can do for this child is Bi-Bi. This is what is most likely to happen with Bi-Bi: (insert your famous statistics here)"

or

"There are different approaches. One approach that has shown to work for the majority is the Bi-Bi approach. *insert info here* There is also the ___(oral, SEE, Klingon)__ approach, there is a very low probability your child will have success and it can be risky, but there ARE some success out there."
 
Daredevel7 said:
Would you prefer the doctors/audiologists/teachers to say something along the lines of:

"Generally speaking, the best thing you can do for this child is Bi-Bi. This is what is most likely to happen with Bi-Bi: (insert your famous statistics here)"

or

"There are different approaches. One approach that has shown to work for the majority is the Bi-Bi approach. *insert info here* There is also the ___(oral, SEE, Klingon)__ approach, there is a very low probability your child will have success and it can be risky, but there ARE some success out there."[/QUOTE]


and then let the parents decide from there?
Click to expand...
 
shel90 said:
The reason for this is that ASL give deaf children full access to language while spoken English may or may not. Would rather not take those risks with language development delays or deficients making establishing literacy skills difficult for the deaf children therefore diminishing the chances for them to achieve literacy to their fullest potential.
Click to expand...

Ok I understand what you are saying. "Choosing the less risky way would serve for the good of majority". If this becomes the agreed method (in real life) then perhaps some kids who could have benefited from oral approach more will lose this edge , but you will ensure majority of kids are getting a strong fundamental base for their language skills, and this will improve majorities circumstances beyond todays conditions. And those kids who has a better potential for oral approach can gain this edge again later.

So Daredevel was suggesting to trying speech therapy for a little while and moving to ASL if it didnt work. But you are saying start teaching ASL to kids as first and then try speech therapy as a very next thing. If kids had a potential ,they still will have a chance to discover it , but you at least wont be risking the kids who has less to no chance.

Correct me if I misunderstand you.

P.s: I am not trying to make you repeat things since most of the stuff is already in previous pages, but there also are many pages of personal arguments and I would like to get a clear sense of what is really being said here.

-
 
Mod's Note:

The thread's closed for now since it has went out of hand.

All this nitpicking has got to stop and to tear one other's post is also disrespectful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top