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 fAEJ23023451; Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:02:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:02:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.1011114184736.9775B-100000@altair.dur.ac.uk> 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: S E Kirk <S.E.Kirk@durham.ac.uk> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3774] Re: Deaf, communication issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 5209 Lines: 122 I'm curious, is S.E.E used as the main form of communication in all learning environments, or only when the 'mechanics' and strategies of reading and writing are being discussed/worked on?? Is a native signing system ever employed for content areas of the curriculum? Steve Kirk. On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Vicki Alford wrote: > > --Boundary_(ID_QbpPoLjGOAXwwXsXs101vA) > Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > KathleenBombach@aol.com wrote: > > Spoken language is also linear, so hearing people have a basic congruence > between speaking and > reading. Deaf people do not. So reading for the deaf is like learning a > very, very foreign language, and > actual cognitive structures for deaf people have to be changed for written > language to make sense--an > extreme form of 'code switching'. > > It can be, but doesn't have to be. That is why our Regional Day School for > the Deaf has > adopted a communication philosophy that supports using Signing Exact English. > This sign > system provides students with an almost "exact" representation of English > "through the air." I > have used it for 9 years and believe it is the reason why our students in our > program do so well > with reading and writing. Our students read above the national norms. > Vicki > > > Sue Miller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: S E Kirk [mailto:S.E.Kirk@durham.ac.uk] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:18 PM > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: [NIFL-LD:3767] Re: Deaf, communication issues > > > > In January this year I completed an MA dissertation on psycholinguistic, > > educational and political aspects of literacy and deafness. It is an area > > I am extremely interested in. > > > > 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. > > > > Does anyone have references for, or knowledge of, Deaf methods of teaching > > - of moving from Sign to text, rather than from English (etc.) to text?? > > 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... > > > > .Is this happening anywhere, does anyone know?? > > > > Steve Kirk. > > --Boundary_(ID_QbpPoLjGOAXwwXsXs101vA) > Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> > <html> > KathleenBombach@aol.com wrote:<i></i> > <p><i> Spoken language is also linear, so hearing people have > a basic congruence between speaking and</i> > <br><i> reading. Deaf people do not. So reading for the deaf > is like learning a very, very foreign language, and</i> > <br><i> actual cognitive structures for deaf people have to be changed > for written language to make sense--an</i> > <br><i> extreme form of 'code switching'.</i> > <p>It can be, but doesn't have to be. That is why our Regional Day > School for the Deaf has > <br>adopted a communication philosophy that supports using Signing Exact > English. This sign > <br>system provides students with an almost "exact" representation of English > "through the air." I > <br>have used it for 9 years and believe it is the reason why our students > in our program do so well > <br>with reading and writing. Our students read above the national > norms. > <br>Vicki > <br> > <p>Sue Miller wrote: > <blockquote TYPE=CITE>-----Original Message----- > <br>From: S E Kirk [<a href="mailto:S.E.Kirk@durham.ac.uk">mailto:S.E.Kirk@durham.ac.uk</a>] > <br>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:18 PM > <br>To: Multiple recipients of list > <br>Subject: [NIFL-LD:3767] Re: Deaf, communication issues > <p>In January this year I completed an MA dissertation on psycholinguistic, > <br>educational and political aspects of literacy and deafness. It is an > area > <br>I am extremely interested in. > <p>I am particularly against the 'hearing-centred' bias in Deaf education > and > <br>the 'linear' methods mentioned in the discussion messages on this forum; > <br>especially given the success of the bilingual-bicultural approaches > of > <br>Sweden and Denmark, where Deaf teachers, and thus visuo-spatial, > <br>'non-linear' methodologies, are central to the development of text-based > <br>literacy. > <p>Does anyone have references for, or knowledge of, Deaf methods of teaching > <br>- of moving from Sign to text, rather than from English (etc.) to text?? > <br>It seems clear to me that only through the participation, research > and > <br>expertise of native signing teachers can effective strategies for the > <br>teaching of reading/writing be developed... > <p>.Is this happening anywhere, does anyone know?? > <p>Steve Kirk.</blockquote> > </html> > > --Boundary_(ID_QbpPoLjGOAXwwXsXs101vA)-- >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:05 EST