Deaf Education - One size does not fit all

flip said:
Now I got it! Loml is a clever ASL activist. Wow, no one has been so succesfull with turning people away from an oral deaf education tool as loml on AD. :bowdown:
Click to expand...

ROFL! QFT!
 
rockdrummer said:
With all due respect flip, I'm not sure I understand or agree with those statements. It looks like you are saying that there are problems with facilitating student centered learning in bi-bi and TC programs? Please correct me if I have mis-understood that. Also I think that each of those approaches can be considered teaching styles. At least with my limited knowledge I would consider them as such.

Education consists of much more than language. Requiring language in order to learn is a given. The purpose is to point out the fact that one size doesn't fit all in educational approaches which has been re-enforced by the information I have provided amongst other things. That is not to say that within a given program kids will or wont do well. There are successes and failures in all programs. Even kids within a specific program will advance at different rates. This happens to hearing kids too. The importance of language aquisition can't be understated but there is much beyond aquiring language that should be considered.

Personally, I like the idea of brain based learning. I also like the idea of fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style. I subscribe to the theories that suggest to use different approaches in order to stimulate the mind. One might even argue that could apply to learning language as well. To me fitting the teaching methods to the childs learning style would be a true IEP.
Click to expand...

Sorry for beeing unclear! I was saying that bi-bi is the ultimate place for student centred learning, or teacher centred, for deaf students. When students fails in other programs, it's a sign that those programs aren't able to facilicate students with proper teaching style. Students are seldom sent away from bi-bi, but often gets students from mainstream and oral programs. The philiosophy behind bi-bi and student centred learning are striking similar. But I strongly disagree that bi-bi or oral deaf educations are specific teaching styles. Bi-bi can facilicate different teaching styles, as oral education can do. Speech, ASL, listening, lipreading and so on can influence teaching styles, but speech vs. sign language and teaching styles are two very different things to me.

If one program can't provide different teaching styles, it's very rigid, limiting and showing signs of outdated pedagogy. Teaching styles can be limited due to lack of communication and language input and output, and here language comes into the picture.

Hope this was more clear.
 
jillio said:
I was speaking of Shel personally. I was commenting on her personal teaching style, and the methodology she uses. And shel does use mouth movements, and voice is used with English. So the student does have the opportunity to switch between the two and practice all skills.
Click to expand...

Thanks and you got it on all counts. One of my students learned ASL just 2 years ago and sometimes he is lost so I switch to spoken language to ensure that he understands. But I NEVER use both at the same time..voicing and ASL. If I am gonna voice, I will drop the signs and if I am gonna sign, I will drop voicing.

So that student gets a pure model of English when I switch to spoken English to fill in the gaps for him since he is still learning ASL. It helps him.
 
jillio said:
No, it is not impossible to use mouth and lip movements with ASL. That is where everyone got confused, me included.
Click to expand...


Let me get this clear, are you saying Shel only use lip movement meaning no voice with ASL during class and it is impossible to use both voice and ASL at the same time am I correct, is that what you both are saying all along? ...
 
Angel said:
Let me get this clear, are you saying Shel only use lip movement meaning no voice with ASL during class and it is impossible to use both voice and ASL at the same time am I correct, is that what you both are saying all along? ...
Click to expand...

I dont know how much of lip movement I am doing. My mind, while teaching, is not on it but rather on how to deliver the lessons to meet all of my students' learning needs.

It is impossible to give a correct model of either ASL or English when using both voice and signing at the same time. One of the languages usually ends up being compromised which is usually ASL.
 
shel90 said:
I dont know how much of lip movement I am doing. My mind, while teaching, is not on it but rather on how to deliver the lessons to meet all of my students' learning needs.

It is impossible to give a correct model of either ASL or English when using both voice and signing at the same time. One of the languages usually ends up being compromised which is usually ASL.
Click to expand...

As far as I know... yes lots of deafies does have lip movements as they sign....
 
Angel said:
Let me get this clear, are you saying Shel only use lip movement meaning no voice with ASL during class and it is impossible to use both voice and ASL at the same time am I correct, is that what you both are saying all along? ...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is impossible to use voice and ASL together. I am saying it is impossible to use ASL and voice together and provide a pure model for English or ASL. If one is voicing in ASL syntax, then one is not providing a proper model of English. If one is signing in English syntax, one is not providing a proper model of ASL. And it is extremely difficult to voice in one sytax while wigning in another because our brains are not able to give full attention to both tasks. Therefore, most people that combine sign and voice end up signing in more of a PSE syntax, and speaking in a PSE syntax, as well.
 
Cheri said:
Yes most do. ASL is a visual signs and it represent of facial and lip movements.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. in some states has different signs for certain things... i look at lip movement thats how i know what that sign means...
 
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
 
rockdrummer said:
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Click to expand...

Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.
 
Just thought of an example that might help to illustrate my point. Rote learning. A student can learn by rote, and thus memorize all the information needed to properly answer questions on an exam. However, if they have learned it by rote, if they are given a question that requires application of that material, they will be lost. The same way with language learning.
 
Familial Language in the home

rockdrummer said:
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Click to expand...


rockdrummer - I believe that a deaf child in a hearing family should be afforded the opportunity to learn/acquire the language of their family from the native users of their language, their very own family. Home is one of the richest enviroments for languae aquisition/learning. Cued Speech allows the family to model for their deaf child the phonemes of the familial spoken language, English, French, in fact 60 possible dialects! Phonemes may not be the only way to acquire language, but chances are it is the way that the family learned. Visual access to all the phonemes of their families language! Simply awesome!

Cued speech can be and is learned in as little as 16-20 hours, the complete system! The parents are not necessarily, at this point having to learn a foreign language. Communication and inclusion possible without having to think....okay what is the sign for?????? Learning ASL for many adults is a daunting task.

IF the family has the opportunity and resources, I also believe that a fluent, native, deaf ASL role model should be the teacher of ASL, ideally also as soon as possible.

m2b
 
rockdrummer said:
Regarding language aquisition, I understand the deaf kids are more visual learners (obviously), and I understand the importance of aquiring language at an early age but I'm not sure I understand why learning ASL before English would be preferential. After all, at some point English should be learned so why not teach it first? It seems to me that if deaf kids have deaf parents that are fluent signers then ASL would be the natural choice but for deaf kids of hearing parents English might be a better choice for L1 language. What do you guys think and why?
Click to expand...

Because deaf people dont have the hearing ability to access English 100% like hearing kids and run the risk of language delays if they struggle with picking up it.

ASL is fully accessible to deaf people cuz it is a visual language so learn both at the same time.

I dont understand why it has to be one or the other. Like can be either oral or ASL. I have seen kids who have been exposed to both and some of them became fluent in both at the same time.

I dont like the idea of presenting the one language that is not fully accessible and run the risk of delays. I see it too much..wayyy too much.
 
jillio said:
Because acqusition is largely passive, not active learning. Because of that, the language presented in a mode that most readily agrees with an innate learning preference will be acquired more readily, thus laying the foundation for more directed, active learning of an L2 language. It is the process of acqusition that provides a child with the capacity to "play" with language and to use it in all of its infinite combinations. That foundation makes learning a second language easier. If one teaches an oral language to a deaf child first, it is in a directive manner, through drill and exercise. It has been supported through much research that hearing mothers of deaf children who are using an oral approach are much more directive in all of their interactions with that child. That directiveness does not allow time for the child to play with language, or to develop intuitive understanding of the ways in which language works. That leads to rigidity in usage, and restricts the way those skills can be applied to learning a second language. When we are talking about language acquisition, it is not so much dependent upon learning preference of the child, the the mode which most readily conveys the most information, and leaves fewer gaps in implicit understanding.
Click to expand...


A perfect example of the rigidity happened in my class today. Those who learned ASL later on (the ones from the oral programs) couldnt explain in abstract thoughts why the girl in the story did this or that but my students who were exposed to ASL first could. The late ASL learners can explain and answer concrete questions but when it comes to abstract questions, they need a lot of prompts from me before they understand them. They have a long way to go while my students who learned ASL first are performing just like hearing children regarding to the abstract thoughts.

Yes, it is great that they have oral skills but without a full access to language nor the opportunities to play around with language while young makes the capability to think abstractly difficult. That is why we see so many referrals of students in the 4th grade age range from the other programs. At that grade, the language delays become very apparent and the curriculm becomes extremely difficult for them.

Start them out young so they wont have this problem later on. That is my philosophy.
 
shel90 said:
A perfect example of the rigidity happened in my class today. Those who learned ASL later on (the ones from the oral programs) couldnt explain in abstract thoughts why the girl in the story did this or that but my students who were exposed to ASL first could. The late ASL learners can explain and answer concrete questions but when it comes to abstract questions, they need a lot of prompts from me before they understand them. They have a long way to go while my students who learned ASL first are performing just like hearing children regarding to the abstract thoughts.

Yes, it is great that they have oral skills but without a full access to language nor the opportunities to play around with language while young makes the capability to think abstractly difficult. That is why we see so many referrals of students in the 4th grade age range from the other programs. At that grade, the language delays become very apparent and the curriculm becomes extremely difficult for them.

Start them out young so they wont have this problem later on. That is my philosophy.
Click to expand...

That is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
 
jillio said:
That is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

Would love to see all deaf children have the same rights to equal access to education as hearing children to but if those oralists have their way, it is not gonna happen.
 
shel90 said:
Would love to see all deaf children have the same rights to equal access to education as hearing children to but if those oralists have their way, it is not gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Iknow what you mean. Hasn't got anything to do with equal access. Its more about conformity. Conform to the oral only way, I demand it of you!
 
loml said:
rockdrummer - I believe that a deaf child in a hearing family should be afforded the opportunity to learn/acquire the language of their family from the native users of their language, their very own family. Home is one of the richest enviroments for languae aquisition/learning.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, It isn't about the family, it's about the deaf child. Tell me why a deaf child is forced to learn the family's language? This is a very difficult task. It's like telling a handicapped child to walk because the whole family walks. They should find a better and more effective way to communicate even if the hearing parents/family have to learn a whole new language. The difference between a hearing and a deaf child is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing children, they use their hearing mode. In the case of deaf children, they use the visual or seeing mode. So, You cannot expect a deaf child to learn the family's language. It sounds unfair in my opinion.
 
Back
Top