Teaching Pre Schoolers ASL

jillio said:
Phonetics is but one avenue to reading. There are many strategies for teaching reading, and given the way that we process the written word cogntively, is not the most preferred by most educators. Many hearing children cannot grasp the concept of phonics.
Click to expand...

So hearing children DO learn to read differently from deaf children, that's all Im saying. They take different avenues..The difference is that hearing children who know ASL would now have at least one extra avenue while deaf children still only have one.. cognitively.
 
Daredevel7 said:
So hearing children DO learn to read differently from deaf children, that's all Im saying. They take different avenues..The difference is that hearing children who know ASL would now have at least one extra avenue while deaf children still only have one.. cognitively.
Click to expand...

No. The avenues I am speaking of refer to teaching methodologies, not learning strategies. So your conclusion is off. Especially since, if want to look at learning strategies, a large protion of hearing children do not learn to read phonetically.
 
jillio said:
No. The avenues I am speaking of refer to teaching methodologies, not learning strategies. So your conclusion is off. Especially since, if want to look at learning strategies, a large protion of hearing children do not learn to read phonetically.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that hearing English words do not affect English reading skills at all? What about other skills? Does hearing English words even make a difference in any development other than speech? That's why I posed the hypothetical situation where a hearing child who is taught just like a deaf child in a voice off educational setting. Will they still develop generally at the same rate?

The reason why I am bringing it up in the first place is not to provoke, but rather give insight why people don't respond to "If you are okay with teaching hearing children ASL, why aren't you okay with teaching deaf children ASL. I don't get it." After all, isn't communication more effective when you learn from their perspective?
 
Okay...here is an example:

The word "phonics" and "fonics" are phonetically the same. They sound the same, they are pronounced the same phonetically. Does the brain recognize them as the same word? No.

Many words in the English language that are phonetically the same are very different words with very different meanings. It takes a bit more than hearing to deciper the written English language, and phonics, it turns out, plays a minor role. We process the written word top down.

Yoo kan rite this in fonetically korekt spelling, but that duz not meen that the brane will rekogniz it as wurdz. You have to struggle with each representation, and cannot read it fluently.
 
jillio said:
What about those hearing kids who do not learn to read phonetically? What about those deaf kids with early exposure to sign that learn to read on par with their hearing peers because they have learned to make the connection of print word to sign word. Sound is but a symbol. It is not the all and everything to reading and literacy.

Likewise, your comment is terribly misleading. Not all cuers learn to read at the same level as their hearing peers. Not all hearing children learn to read at the same level of their hearing peers. And some deaf children learn to read at advanced levels compared to their hearing peers. It is not nearly as simple and as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

And I've said it before, and will say it again: if CS is so successful at raising literacy rates, why, after 40 years, is it rarely used?
Click to expand...

Just wanted to say that the idea of: SOME but NOT ALL is right on target! THAT is the key in working with deaf children of varying abilities, degrees of hearing loss, aided or unaided, speaking or not speaking, signing or not signing, etc. Anyone who doesn't "get" that simply does not "get" deaf education--each deaf/hh child is very unique and needs very specific things tailored just for them individually. Blanket statements--blanket beliefs about ALL deaf children--those do NOT apply to all deaf children. I LIKE your reference to SOME but NOT ALL--that is the truth!!

BTW: I am a hearing mother of a deaf daughter who was raised orally, reads both phonetically and contextually, and now is learning sign language and is picking up on it quite well. A lot of "theories" would NOT have worked for her--we tailored things just for her and individualized her education specifically to her unique abilities and needs. There is another mother who posts here often who is doing the same thing with her daughter--tailoring to her daughter's specific and unique needs. What worked for us may or may not work for them, and vice-versa. I just want that mother to know that parents of deaf children TRULY understand this. Apparently someone who thinks in terms of ALL instead of unique individuality has offended that mother--I just want her to know: ignore the all-or-nothings--they do NOT know YOUR child and her abilities and needs. Do what is best for YOUR child and tune out the rest of the naysayers. THEY ARE WRONG--YOU ARE RIGHT--NO ONE KNOWS YOUR CHILD LIKE YOU DO! :)

BTW: jillio--once again YOU are RIGHT about the SOME and NOT ALL--that is the key! Deaf children are all beautiful souls with unique and individual needs. YOU get it! :)
 
Deborah said:
Just wanted to say that the idea of: SOME but NOT ALL is right on target! THAT is the key in working with deaf children of varying abilities, degrees of hearing loss, aided or unaided, speaking or not speaking, signing or not signing, etc. Anyone who doesn't "get" that simply does not "get" deaf education--each deaf/hh child is very unique and needs very specific things tailored just for them individually. Blanket statements--blanket beliefs about ALL deaf children--those do NOT apply to all deaf children. I LIKE your reference to SOME but NOT ALL--that is the truth!!

BTW: I am a hearing mother of a deaf daughter who was raised orally, reads both phonetically and contextually, and now is learning sign language and is picking up on it quite well. A lot of "theories" would NOT have worked for her--we tailored things just for her and individualized her education specifically to her unique abilities and needs. There is another mother who posts here often who is doing the same thing with her daughter--tailoring to her daughter's specific and unique needs. What worked for us may or may not work for them, and vice-versa. I just want that mother to know that parents of deaf children TRULY understand this. Apparently someone who thinks in terms of ALL instead of unique individuality has offended that mother--I just want her to know: ignore the all-or-nothings--they do NOT know YOUR child and her abilities and needs. Do what is best for YOUR child and tune out the rest of the naysayers. THEY ARE WRONG--YOU ARE RIGHT--NO ONE KNOWS YOUR CHILD LIKE YOU DO! :)

BTW: jillio--once again YOU are RIGHT about the SOME and NOT ALL--that is the key! Deaf children are all beautiful souls with unique and individual needs. YOU get it! :)
Click to expand...

Thank you, deborah. And I think most of us who discuss educational issues on this forum do so in terms of "majority", not all. We propose that policy be set on the "majority" and then accommodations made for those that have needs other than those covered under the policy of what works for the majority.
 
jillio said:
Okay...here is an example:

The word "phonics" and "fonics" are phonetically the same. They sound the same, they are pronounced the same phonetically. Does the brain recognize them as the same word? No.

Many words in the English language that are phonetically the same are very different words with very different meanings. It takes a bit more than hearing to deciper the written English language, and phonics, it turns out, plays a minor role. We process the written word top down.

Yoo kan rite this in fonetically korekt spelling, but that duz not meen that the brane will rekogniz it as wurdz. You have to struggle with each representation, and cannot read it fluently.
Click to expand...

But...... the reason why I CAN read that is because I know how they sound phonetically..... if someone misspells a word... wouldn't the phonetic user understand it more?

Also, you learn language by communication first, not written. So let's say that I heard (let's pretend I hear..) "awesome" but I've NEVER seen it written. So maybe I'll try writing down: "ausum" whereas an ASL user would absolutely have no idea how to write it down.

I am NOT trying to understand how a deaf person learns to read cuz I mean it's obvious, but I'm just trying to understand how hearing does NOT make a difference in reading/writing skills.
 
Daredevel7 said:
But...... the reason why I CAN read that is because I know how they sound phonetically..... if someone misspells a word... wouldn't the phonetic user understand it more?

Also, you learn language by communication first, not written. So let's say that I heard (let's pretend I hear..) "awesome" but I've NEVER seen it written. So maybe I'll try writing down: "ausum" whereas an ASL user would absolutely have no idea how to write it down.

I am NOT trying to understand how a deaf person learns to read cuz I mean it's obvious, but I'm just trying to understand how hearing does NOT make a difference in reading/writing skills.
Click to expand...

No, spelling has little to do with phonetics, especially in the English language. That is illustrated in the sentence I wrote phonetically.

If you have found the book I recommended, check out the cognitive tests they did on spellers--deaf signers compared to oral hearing. Not surprisingly, the deaf signers came out on top.

Evidently, it is not obvious how a deaf person learns to read. Hearing does not make a difference in reading and writing skills. Language acquisition does.
 
Daredevel7 said:
But...... the reason why I CAN read that is because I know how they sound phonetically..... if someone misspells a word... wouldn't the phonetic user understand it more?

Also, you learn language by communication first, not written. So let's say that I heard (let's pretend I hear..) "awesome" but I've NEVER seen it written. So maybe I'll try writing down: "ausum" whereas an ASL user would absolutely have no idea how to write it down.

I am NOT trying to understand how a deaf person learns to read cuz I mean it's obvious, but I'm just trying to understand how hearing does NOT make a difference in reading/writing skills.
Click to expand...

Nonsense about the phonetic user understands more. I have a huge vocabulary and I read fast by the shape of the word. I have all these words memorized.
 
Bottesini said:
Nonsense about the phonetic user understands more. I have a huge vocabulary and I read fast by the shape of the word. I have all these words memorized.
Click to expand...

And the shape of the word is what we process when we read. We do not see each letter, each phoneme, or each morpheme. When the word as symbol is translated to another symbol, whether it is a spoken word, or a sign, meaning the same thing, comprehension has occurred.
 
jillio said:
No, spelling has little to do with phonetics, especially in the English language. That is illustrated in the sentence I wrote phonetically.

If you have found the book I recommended, check out the cognitive tests they did on spellers--deaf signers compared to oral hearing. Not surprisingly, the deaf signers came out on top.

Evidently, it is not obvious how a deaf person learns to read. Hearing does not make a difference in reading and writing skills. Language acquisition does.
Click to expand...

Spelling has little to do with phonetics? When someone misspells a word, most of the time it has to do with how they are sounded.....

I am saying like you said when you do it cognitively, you have to SEE the word before you learn it. I'm saying phonetically you don't. Which is why deaf signers are better spellers because they are not affected phonetically. People misspell because they rely on what they sound like not what they look like. Hence hearing affects the reading/writing skills. Hence hearing kids learn to read differently than deaf kids.....
 
Daredevel7 said:
Spelling has little to do with phonetics? When someone misspells a word, most of the time it has to do with how they are sounded.....

I am saying like you said when you do it cognitively, you have to SEE the word before you learn it. I'm saying phonetically you don't. Which is why deaf signers are better spellers because they are not affected phonetically. People misspell because they rely on what they sound like not what they look like. Hence hearing affects the reading/writing skills. Hence hearing kids learn to read differently than deaf kids.....
Click to expand...

Hence what I keep saying. Deaf people spell better!!
 
Daredevel7 said:
Spelling has little to do with phonetics? When someone misspells a word, most of the time it has to do with how they are sounded.....

I am saying like you said when you do it cognitively, you have to SEE the word before you learn it. I'm saying phonetically you don't. Which is why deaf signers are better spellers because they are not affected phonetically. People misspell because they rely on what they sound like not what they look like. Hence hearing affects the reading/writing skills. Hence hearing kids learn to read differently than deaf kids.....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Phonics causes more misspelled words than correctly spelled words. Especially in the English language.

Even people who know phonics process the written word visually in the way I have described. They do not do it phonetically. It is processed as a whole recognizable shape.
 
jillio said:
And the shape of the word is what we process when we read. We do not see each letter, each phoneme, or each morpheme. When the word as symbol is translated to another symbol, whether it is a spoken word, or a sign, meaning the same thing, comprehension has occurred.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Exactly. Phonics causes more misspelled words than correctly spelled words. Especially in the English language.

Even people who know phonics process the written word visually in the way I have described. They do not do it phonetically. It is processed as a whole recognizable shape.
Click to expand...

which is why I brought up a hieroglyphic example. universal traffic signs and colors would be an example as well.
 
Okay going back to my original scenario. Teaching a hearing child just like a deaf child (ASL and written English), would they develop literacy at the same rate?

I say no because hearing new words in the real world DO add to the English vocabulary... albeit misspelled... :)
 
Daredevel7 said:
Okay going back to my original scenario. Teaching a hearing child just like a deaf child (ASL and written English), would they develop literacy at the same rate?

I say no because hearing new words in the real world DO add to the English vocabulary... albeit misspelled... :)
Click to expand...

We have addressed this time and time and time again. You can say "no" all you want to, but it has been empirically supported over and over and over again that your conclusions are in error.
 
jillio said:
We have addressed this time and time and time again. You can say "no" all you want to, but it has been empirically supported over and over and over again that your conclusions are in error.
Click to expand...

But you're assuming that I am saying that you need to hear to have a vocabulary. I'm saying the idea of hearing words having absolutely NO additional effect to literacy rates seems a little extreme.
 
Daredevel7 said:
But you're assuming that I am saying that you need to hear to have a vocabulary. I'm saying the idea of hearing words having absolutely NO additional effect to literacy rates seems a little extreme.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I am assuming at all.

Tell that to the experts, then. And the profoundly deaf PH.D's in this country.
 
Back
Top