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 fAFDmE027873; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:48:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:48:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3BF3C565.3CF55D44@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:3775] 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: 6284 Lines: 137 Generally, yes, SEE is used mainly during the Language Arts class. In addition, SEE is used as much as possible in all areas of the school day. We want our students to have access/exposure to English as much as possible. This goal does not compromise student understanding, however. Depending on the student's reading and receptive language level, and the concepts being taught, teachers and interpreters modify (i.e by using language that is understood by the student) as needed to ensure a student is understanding the concepts presented. For understanding is not occurring, our policy is to use SEE first, and then back it up with a language understood by the student, and then present it in SEE again. Of course, the policy is not always pratical for interpreters in a content area interpreting a lecture. Vicki S E Kirk wrote: > > 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