Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fADMao025976; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:36:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:36:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3BF19DEB.D1F461FC@san-marcos.isd.tenet.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Vicki Alford <vicki.alford@san-marcos.isd.tenet.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3771] Re: Deaf, communication issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) Status: O Content-Length: 2200 Lines: 44 My responses are in CAPS-- Steve Kirk wrote: > I am particularly against the 'hearing-centred' bias in Deaf education and > the 'linear' methods mentioned in the discussion messages on this forum; > especially given the success of the bilingual-bicultural approaches of > Sweden and Denmark, where Deaf teachers, and thus visuo-spatial, > 'non-linear' methodologies, are central to the development of text-based > literacy. RESEARCH DOES NOT CURRENTLY SUPPORT THIS...THE INFORMATION FROM SWEDEN AND DENMARK IS PURELY ANECDOTAL. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED, HOWEVER, IF IN THE FUTURE, THE RESEARCH DOES SUPPORT SUCH A METHOD. THE REASON WHY I SAY THIS IS BECUASE THE RESEARCH SUPPORTS METHODS THAT TRY TO RESPRESENT A COMPLETE LANGUAGE--AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE as well as ENGLISH. OUR PROGRAM UTILIZES SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH BECUASE IT IS THE MOST COMPLETE OF THE SIGNING SYSTEMS IN REPRESENTING ENGLISH. RESEARCH HAS SHOWN METHODS THAT SUPPORT AN INCOMPLETE LANGUAGE--I.E. PIDGEN, SIGNING ENGLISH, ETC--DO NOT BENEFIT A DEAF STUDENT'S LITERACY. I USE SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH IN MY CLASSROOM, AND IT WORKS. JUST BECAUSE I USE SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH, DOESN'T MEAN I'M "against" THE USE BI-BI. THE REASONS WHY OUR PROGRAM DOES NOT UTILIZE BI-BI ARE: 1. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH NATIVE SIGNERS OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A PROGRAM, 2. THE RESEARCH SUPPORTS THE USE OF SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LITERACY, AND 3. MOST OF MY STUDENTS "COME FROM" HEARING FAMILIES, WHERE ENGLISH IS SPOKEN AND/OR SIGNED--AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE IS NOT THEIR NATIVE LANGAUGE. RESEARCH TO READ WOULD BE RESEARCH DONE BY BARBARA LUETKE-STAHLMAN AND MARY PAT MOELLER. PETER V. PAUL, A DEAF MAN, ALSO OFFERS SOME WONDERFUL INSIGHT INTO THIS ISSUE. > It seems clear to me that only through the participation, research and > expertise of native signing teachers can effective strategies for the > teaching of reading/writing be developed... AS I STATED IN MY PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH, USING A BI-BI METHOD IS NOT THE "only" WAY. SIGNING EXACT ENGLISH, BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS A COMPLETE REPRESENTATION OF ENGLISH, HAS SHOWN TO POSITIVELY AFFECT DEAF STUDENTS' LITERACY. HOPE THIS HELPS. VICKI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:05 EST