Is it really so bad to know SEE (Sign Exact English?)

GrendelQ said:
Right. Because they can hear, so they use the spoken mode of English to learn to read and write the written form. They are "subjected" to the spoken mode.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Deaf children don't acquire English the same way hearing children do because they can't hear it.
 
CSign said:
Exactly. Deaf children don't acquire English the same way hearing children do because they can't hear it.
Click to expand...

Really? Then I guess all those children with CIs supposedly in the speech range is entirely moot.
 
CSign said:
Exactly. Deaf children don't acquire English the same way hearing children do because they can't hear it.
Click to expand...

Ok and the point is?

Question is...can deaf children achieve fluency in Englsih and were any of them, including myself, able to achieve fluency in English historically without being able to hear it like hearing children do?
 
shel90 said:
Ok and the point is?

Question is...can deaf children achieve fluency in Englsih and were any of them, including myself, able to achieve fluency in English historically without being able to hear it like hearing children do?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Being profoundly d/Deaf myself, and raised with ASL, I don't really see a problem with my English. I didn't need to hear it.
 
CSign said:
Of course there were people who were literate in English, however overall a significant number of deaf students were graduating with limited English skills. This is why SEE was created. Not to take ASL away from the Deaf community, but to provide another means of learning English because whatever was happening was not working.
Click to expand...

Because of the Milan Conference and it creating a ripple effect.
 
CSign said:
Of course there were people who were literate in English, however overall a significant number of deaf students were graduating with limited English skills. This is why SEE was created. Not to take ASL away from the Deaf community, but to provide another means of learning English because whatever was happening was not working.
Click to expand...
I suspect SEE was created to enable "shell-shocked" hearing parents of deaf children an alternative that they might be more comfortable with, could learn faster, with all the familiar sentence structures to their own English.
 
shel90 said:
It doesnt make sense because many deaf people who use ASL have learned to read and write the spoken language just fine.
Click to expand...
There are examples of it all over this forum, and others. There are also numerous examples of weak writing and speaking skills in the general population.
 
CSign said:
Of course there were people who were literate in English, however overall a significant number of deaf students were graduating with limited English skills. This is why SEE was created. Not to take ASL away from the Deaf community, but to provide another means of learning English because whatever was happening was not working.
Click to expand...
You can document this assertion?

What were the percentages of English literacy, year by year (or at least by decade) of hearing Americans vs. Deaf Americans who were primarily ASL users, prior to the introduction of SEE in Deaf education? What were the percentages pre- and post- Milan?

BTW, there are a significant amount of hearing students who are functionally illiterate even though they graduated from hearing high schools.
 
Reba said:
Now's your chance to make your stance clear.

Do you believe that a child who uses ASL can learn to read and write English without using any form of SEE or signed English?
Click to expand...

Has someone contended that this is impossible? My daughter doesn't use SEE. But her ASL-using teachers most definitely used signed English to help her learn to read. There are other ways, too.

We know that it's of great benefit to have command of a language when learning a second. ASL is no exception. If you are fluent in ASL, it will be easier for you to learn English than if you had no language competency. Gallaudet researchers are currently struggling to find ways that ASL can be directly used to help with teaching English, but because they are such different languages without an ability to map sign to word and grammatical structures the way one could map vocabulary and grammar across many spoken languages, they find that deaf teachers themselves aren't able to make this work effectively. Did you watch the recent live stream from Gally on this subject a couple of weeks ago? http://vl2.gallaudet.edu/news.php?id=240

Fingerspelling seems to be a connection between the languages that can help.
 
Reba said:
You can document this assertion?

What were the percentages of English literacy, year by year (or at least by decade) of hearing Americans vs. Deaf Americans who were primarily ASL users, prior to the introduction of SEE in Deaf education? What were the percentages pre- and post- Milan?

BTW, there are a significant amount of hearing students who are functionally illiterate even though they graduated from hearing high schools.
Click to expand...

Literacy among deaf students is a very serious problem, Reba. On average, prelingually deaf readers graduate from high school with reading skills comparable to hearing third and fourth graders. That finding has been consistent throughout the past century. See more: http://www.alldeaf.com/parents-deaf...ess-skilled-deaf-readers-why.html#post2118237.
 
CSign said:
Of course there were people who were literate in English, however overall a significant number of deaf students were graduating with limited English skills. This is why SEE was created. Not to take ASL away from the Deaf community, but to provide another means of learning English because whatever was happening was not working.
Click to expand...
What if deaf children don't like SEE and continue using ASL? What would you do? Force them to use SEE?
 
saywhatkid said:
I suspect SEE was created to enable "shell-shocked" hearing parents of deaf children an alternative that they might be more comfortable with, could learn faster, with all the familiar sentence structures to their own English.
Click to expand...

You know that SEE was created by a deaf academic at Gallaudet to provide a system for teaching deaf students learn to read, right?
 
Reba said:
That might be typical but it's not necessary.


Yet, deaf children "without access to sound" do learn to read and write, even if it's not "from the spoken form," and they can do it without an artificial code system.

Let me put it another way.

English-speaking people can learn ASL in a voice-off class without using an intermediate artificial code (such as SEE), and without any prior exposure to sign language. My first level of ASL was taught to me by a Deaf instructor, voice-off, all with visual references. And I don't mean just writing a list of words on the board and showing sign equivalents.


English is not Greek/Chinese/Swahili/whatever. English does NOT use the same alphabet or grammar as many other languages, yet English-speaking people learn those other languages without creating "codes" for the process.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to make the language learning process any more difficult than it is.
Click to expand...

Reba, the visual references your teacher presented, like showing you that the sign for drink means "drink" is a means of encoding vocabulary visually. A bridge. Those demonstrations you were "subjected" to didn't replace some other language, they were teaching tools to help you connect meaning to sign.
 
GrendelQ said:
Has someone contended that this is impossible? My daughter doesn't use SEE. But her ASL-using teachers most definitely used signed English to help her learn to read. There are other ways, too.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question.

"Do you believe that a child who uses ASL can learn to read and write English without using any form of SEE or signed English?"

Yes or no answer, please.
 
Reba said:
That doesn't answer my question.

"Do you believe that a child who uses ASL can learn to read and write English without using any form of SEE or signed English?"

Yes or no answer, please.
Click to expand...

Yes. My daughter uses ASL. She likely could have learned to read English solely using spoken language as the bridge without signed English support. But using signs she knew made it easier. But not all ASL-using children have access to sound as she does. Why hold well-studied learning tools back from children? Just to make it more difficult for them and to continue the literacy gap?
 
GrendelQ said:
Yes. My daughter uses ASL. She likely could have learned to read English solely using spoken language as the bridge without signed English support. But using signs she knew made it easier. But not all ASL-using children have access to sound as she does. Why hold well-studied learning tools back from children? Just to make it more difficult for them and to continue the literacy gap?
Click to expand...

That is what makes no sense to me.
 
Back
Top