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 fAKHpX001216; Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:51:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:51:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3BFA957B.B44673D@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:3787] 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: 6222 Lines: 122 Steve Kirk, I'm happy that you have replied. Many of your statements, however, are myths and I hope I can clarify them below. I have researched this issue for the past nine years. I must tell you that many of the graduates in deaf ed and in interpreter training programs are fed the myths you state below. I find it extremely disastrous to progress deaf educators have made in improving their students' literacy. I'm not saying that SEE is a panacea to deaf students' national literacy problems, but it is ONE of the ways that has worked in my classroom and many others. As I have stated in one my previous emails, our students out perform other deaf students in the nation. My replies to your comments are in CAPS. S E Kirk wrote: > I see the reasoning vis-a-vis sending a > 'precise' version of English 'through the air'; but this is a hearing > solution to a Deaf 'problem'. MYTH # 1--IN A SENSE, YES, BECAUSE SEE IS A SYSTEM TO REPRESENT ANOTHER LANGUAGE AND NOT A LANGUAGE IN ITSELF. BUT, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DEVELOPED SEE? ONE IS A DEAF WOMAN AND ONE IS A CODA. SO IS THIS REALLY ONLY A "HEARING" SOLUTION? > > Can SEE encode intonation and emphatic stress? Can SEE make pragmatic > meaning clear, when it is different from the surface meaning (e.g > sarcasm)? MYTH # 2--SEE INCORPORATES ASL PRINCIPALS (I.E. FACIAL EXPRESSION, BODY MOVEMENT, ETC.), SO YES SEE CAN MAKE PRAGMATICS CLEAR. > > I doubt it. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN SEE SIGNED AND USED IN A CLASSROOM SETTING? > > This situation, as Kathleen points out, is entirely analogous to the > majority of 'bilingual' education settings in the world where the language > of the minority is suppressed MYTH # 3--WE DO NOT REQUIRE STUDENTS TO SIGN SEE. SEE does not replace A STUDENT'S NATIVE LANGUAGE. IT IS USED SO THAT STUDENTS CAN BE EXPOSED TO ENGLISH, AND THEREFOR CAN MAKE CONNECTIONS TO WHAT THEY ARE SEEING "THROUGH THE AIR" AND WHAT THEY READ AND WRITE. >and the majority language (of which the > students often have only a partial knowledge) is used as the medium of > instruction. MYTH # 4--THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION. YES, SOME STUDENTS COME TO US WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH...SO DO YOU THINK WE DON'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT WE FORCE OUR STUDENTS TO SIT THERE WHILE WE SIGN AND BE CONFUSED? NO WE TAKE EACH STUDENT'S ENGLISH KNOWLEDGE INTO CONSIDERATION AND MODIFY OUR USE OF SEE ACCORDINGLY. > In fact, if we take a sociolinguistic (rather than medical) > view of deafness - and there are, of course, many sound justifications for > doing so - the current situation in mainstream Deaf education in many > countries around the world is in violation of several articles of the > International Declaration of Linguistic Human Rights (in relation to > linguistic minorities). IT'S VIOLATION TO DENY OUR STUDENTS ACCESS TO ENGLISH! HOW CAN THEY COMPETE IN THIS NATION IF THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT READERS AND WRITERS OF ENGLISH? > And even if SEE could adequately represent the English language, what an > incredibly slow, heavy handed and cumbersome way of communicating with the > students! MYTH #5--HAVE YOU EVER SEEN OR TRIED TO USE SEE? ONCE YOU LEARN IT, IT'S EASY!!! >Think of how much more could be achieved through (e.g.)a > discussion of how a text encodes meaning (in English, for example) in Sign > - a multi-layered NATURAL human language. Why teach an 'intermediary' > language on the way to English?! Why not make DIRECT links between Sign > and text? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS IN MY CLASSROOM WHILE I SIGN SEE. > > Pycholinguistic research is showing that deaf people can develop an > understanding of the phonology of English (or whatever) THROUGH PRINT. PLEASE GIVE NAMES, I HAVEN'T FOUND THIS IN MY RESEARCH OF DEAF LITERACY. > This is a very different route to reading when compared with hearing > children, of course, but makes complete sense when you think of the Deaf > mind and how their L1 must be represented. An internal system of phonemic > contrasts (despite the grapheme-phoneme mismatch 'problem') thus develops > AS A RESULT OF exposure to print in meaningful contexts, and not as a > precursor to rewarding experiences of English through text. THIS SOUNDS LIKE A PHONICS VERSUS WHOLE LANGUAGE DEBATE. READING RESEARCHERS KNOW THAT THAT NEITHER PHONICS NOR WHOLE LANGUAGE CAN STAND ALONE. IT'S NOT A BOTTOM OR TOP-DOWN, IT'S BOTH. CHALL GIVE GREAT INSIGHT INTO THIS ISSUE. > > While linguistics does not yet have the tools to explain how linear, > sequential English-as-text can be adequately encoded via only manual > representations (given what are clearly major syntactic (etc.) > differences), it is becoming clear that Deaf children and adults can and > do make these links, given the appropriately supportive environment, > without recourse to an artificial stepping-stone representational system. THIS IS TRUE, ESPECIALLY FOR DEAF CHILDREN OF DEAF ADULTS (10% OF THE DEAF POPULATION). WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE OTHER 90% OF THE DEAF CHILDREN WHO HAVE HEARING PARENTS THAT SPEAK ENGLISH? WHAT IS THEIR "native" LANGUAGE? CERTAINLY, IT IS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR HANDS, BUT IN WHAT FORM? > > I have read much about Deaf children as young as three or four years old > who make their own links to text (without adult intervention), and of > native signing teachers who also make links between new words/concepts, > their sign equivalents, the fingerspelled version, etc., as and when these > items are presented in class. > > If Deaf education were not so entirely dominated by the hearing community, I'M NOT SURE "DOMINATED" IS THE RIGHT WORD. BILINGUAL EDUCATION DEPENDS ON DEAF PEOPLE WHO SIGN ASL--THERE JUST AREN'T THAT MANY OUT THERE WHO GO INTO EDUCATION. THIS IS A PROBLEM FOR BILINGUAL EDUCATION. > maybe such pedagogies would be mainstream, and maybe these children would > be reading at the national average - not the national average for deaf > children, but at the age-appropriate level for ANY child (barring > cognitive impairments, of course). THIS IS OUR GOAL! > > And with literacy levels equalling those of their hearing peers, deaf > students truly would have a chance of fuller participation in the 'oral > world'. > > Steve Kirk. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:05 EST