Literacy Levels
Kevin McLeod
level in the Deaf community based on my experience.
I used to tutor English at Gallaudet University. Some of my students
were very bright people and very able communicators, but they had an
incredibly frustrating time with English.
I also know quite a few pre-lingually and profoundly deaf adults with an
excellent command of English. Many people from both of these groups
recieved their education at residential schools for the deaf.
So where is difference? What element led one group to low levels of
English literacy and permitted others to achieve a higher standard?
It's not native intelligence. As I said, some of my students in English
were bright.
The common denominator I'm seeing is the involvement of the parents.
Marvin Miller's experience is an excellent example of what I mean. It
doesn't seem to matter whether the parents are Deaf or hearing - if they
are making an effort to expose the child to English early, they swot it
up just as they are learning everything else their little minds can
absorb.
Another factor; ALL parents of deaf children with good English skills
made the effort to learn sign language and used it to convey English to
their children. It seems to me that communicating in sign is virtually a
prerequisite for getting English skills across to deaf children at an age
when they are most receptive to learning it.
From this, I draw two conclusions. The first is fairly obvious; there
is simply no substitute for parental involvement in the child's education.
Taking the time to learn to sign is not a trivial task, but it MUST be
done - to establish rapport, accurate communication and understanding,
and to educate.
That said, my second conclusion is that this is a disturbing indictment
of the state of Deaf education. Now, the American educational system is
screwed for both hearing and Deaf alike; but it seems clear that Deaf
education in particular is falling down on the job in teaching good
English skills. When students as bright as I've seen are coming into
college with weak English skills, I can't fault the students. I've seen
them cry with frustation, because they try so hard. Somewhere along the
line, they haven't gotten the early learning tools they deserve. They're
left to struggle, attempting to catch up after their prime years for
learning language have already passed.
I suspect the prime culprit has been too much emphasis on teaching
speech at time when it is far more important to acquire language. There
are still educators that confuse these two, that equate speech with
language.
It makes me wonder what proponents of the "it's a hearing world" school
of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
Miriam Clifford
EARLY.
Mimi
Cathy Brandt
>made the effort to learn sign language and used it to convey English to
>their children. It seems to me that communicating in sign is virtually a
>prerequisite for getting English skills across to deaf children at an age
>when they are most receptive to learning it.
So, Kevin, are you saying ASL or Signed English? Do we even have to make that
distinction? I am curious about your experiences in tutoring. What were some
of the other common factors of the students who experienced success as well as
those who experienced difficulty?
>of the state of Deaf education. Now, the American educational system is
>screwed for both hearing and Deaf alike; but it seems clear that Deaf
>education in particular is falling down on the job in teaching good
>English skills. When students as bright as I've seen are coming into
Would you care to go out on a limb here (anyone) and give some specifics where
you see education falling down?
As far as Deaf Education - I just see too much Pidgin going on in the name of
Signed English and giving those of us who REALLY do use Signed English a bad
name. The Total Communication programs I've seen are NOT total at all. They
are manual programs where teachers use their voice and say that makes them
Total. That is a BIG joke.
>I suspect the prime culprit has been too much emphasis on teaching
>speech at time when it is far more important to acquire language. There
>are still educators that confuse these two, that equate speech with
>language.
I think we do kids an injustice when we separate these two skills. They can
go hand in hand. No, they don't HAVE to. And for he ASL adovocates it is
impossible to include speech while communicating in ASL. But, as Lew as
allueded to frequently it is the combination of these skills that can be very
beneficial to one in the hearing world - where most of us outside of Gallaudet
do live.
>It makes me wonder what proponents of the "it's a hearing world" school
>of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
>mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
>first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
Kevin, I don't really understand that paragraph. Are you saying what will
those (we) people say if sign language is shown to be the most effective way
of teaching language to the deaf? Once again that is assuming we lump ALL
people with a hearing loss in one category and decide that ONE method will meet
ALL kid's needs. We are back to the ONE KEY theory that I don't think holds
water. There is more than one way to skin a cat. And there is more than one
way to educate a child. The sun melts ice and hardens clay. The difference is
the contents or the make up of the subject receiving the action. Heat/teaching
methods will affect different subjects in different ways.
Am I singing an old song AGAIN?
Cathy - teacher of children who are ready for Summer. I think the teacher is,
too!
Marvin Miller
: As far as Deaf Education - I just see too much Pidgin going on in the name of
: Signed English and giving those of us who REALLY do use Signed English a bad
: name. The Total Communication programs I've seen are NOT total at all. They
: are manual programs where teachers use their voice and say that makes them
: Total. That is a BIG joke.
: >I suspect the prime culprit has been too much emphasis on teaching
: >speech at time when it is far more important to acquire language. There
: >are still educators that confuse these two, that equate speech with
: >language.
: I think we do kids an injustice when we separate these two skills. They can
: go hand in hand. No, they don't HAVE to. And for he ASL adovocates it is
: impossible to include speech while communicating in ASL. But, as Lew as
: allueded to frequently it is the combination of these skills that can be very
: beneficial to one in the hearing world - where most of us outside of Gallaudet
: do live.
Ok, why do we have to communicate in ASL and talk at the same time? ITs
quite possible for students to have a teacher who doesn't use voice at
all, and still have good speech skills. Why try combine both at the same
time... its like trying to combine French and English at the same time.
I'm just saying this because you seem to imply that ASL method isn't
effective because you can't combine both as opposed to SEE.
: >It makes me wonder what proponents of the "it's a hearing world" school
: >of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
: >mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
: >first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
: Kevin, I don't really understand that paragraph. Are you saying what will
: those (we) people say if sign language is shown to be the most effective way
: of teaching language to the deaf? Once again that is assuming we lump ALL
: people with a hearing loss in one category and decide that ONE method will meet
: ALL kid's needs. We are back to the ONE KEY theory that I don't think holds
: water. There is more than one way to skin a cat. And there is more than one
: way to educate a child. The sun melts ice and hardens clay. The difference is
: the contents or the make up of the subject receiving the action. Heat/teaching
: methods will affect different subjects in different ways.
: Am I singing an old song AGAIN?
Yeah, aren't we all? Basically, that's where I disagree with you. I think
its ABSOLUTELY ABSURD that we have to modify our education methods to each
child. Think about this... if our public schools did this for hearing
children... it'll be a mess! Quite simply, there isn't enough manpower to
get this done. Secondly, its possible to teach a large number of students
using same methods.
ASL as a language doesn't discriminate. If you have better hearing than
others, it won't "impair" your ability if you learned ASL then English as
a second language. Child's better hearing can be used to enhance one's
reception of spoken english in spoken english labs. (That's the term for
speech classes at Indiana Sch. f/t Deaf).
Our theory is that you DON'T HAVE TO HEAR in order to learn English (and
ASL). If you can, so what? It won't make any difference. I bet you if we
took in a couple hearing babies and exposed them to ASL at an early age,
then I don't believe that their "learning" curve would be impaired at
all... In fact, it would probably enhance them since they would be truly
bilinguals.
It doesn't make sense for us to argue that each child should receive
education individually. I can imagine it already...
Principals making decisions, along with parents, by scanning child's
audiogram and a battery of psychological tests saying, "Allright, this kid
needs 40% ASL, 55% speech training and 5% SEE in order for him to succeed.
S/he also should receive cochlear implants to enhance his speech training.
Take those and call me in next 5 years."
What we should do is create a solid foundation of Deaf Education, such as
starting ALL deaf kids in ASL as soon they receive their hearing test,
then we can add options to child's education as we go by. Speech training?
Sure, that's room 106b. Cued speech? 107a, down the hall.
It doesn't make sense to get rid of the basic foundation every time we get
a child that "might" need something different.
Cathy, as a teacher, you know that learning process never stops until we
die... then that would be up to Somebody Up There. Why don't you attend
ASL classes in a college nearby? To learn its structure and syntax, and
maybe a little history behind ASL. It can't hurt, can it?
Marvin Miller
mmi...@garnet.msen.com
SORRY, DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, NO WITTY TAG LINE IS AVAILABLE.
PLEASE STAND BY.
Roving Reporter
> As far as Deaf Education - I just see too much Pidgin going on in the name of
> Signed English and giving those of us who REALLY do use Signed English a bad
> name. The Total Communication programs I've seen are NOT total at all. They
> are manual programs where teachers use their voice and say that makes them
> Total. That is a BIG joke.
True, but that *in my opinion* just proves that SEE is unworkable. Pidgin
is still the only way to go for sim-com, and I suspect it only works if you
know English fairly well, which still defeats the purpose. ASL is better
for explaining the details.
> I think we do kids an injustice when we separate these two skills. They can
> go hand in hand. No, they don't HAVE to. And for he ASL adovocates it is
> impossible to include speech while communicating in ASL. But, as Lew as
> allueded to frequently it is the combination of these skills that can be very
> beneficial to one in the hearing world - where most of us outside of Gallaudet
> do live.
It may be easier for the *teacher* but that's not the point of the
discussion. The kids will learn about the hearing world as they grow up,
but they need to learn *how to learn and think* in school. Extensive Speech
therapy detracts from the time for this activity.
>>It makes me wonder what proponents of the "it's a hearing world" school
>>of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
>>mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
>>first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
>
> Kevin, I don't really understand that paragraph. Are you saying what will
> those (we) people say if sign language is shown to be the most effective way
> of teaching language to the deaf? Once again that is assuming we lump ALL
> people with a hearing loss in one category and decide that ONE method will meet
> ALL kid's needs. We are back to the ONE KEY theory that I don't think holds
> water. There is more than one way to skin a cat. And there is more than one
> way to educate a child. The sun melts ice and hardens clay. The difference is
> the contents or the make up of the subject receiving the action. Heat/teaching
> methods will affect different subjects in different ways.
I believe it would be better to consider ASL the default method and use
the other methods *in addition to* ASL, as appropriate. If you leave out
ASL for anyone, you don't know the child may lose more hearing later, or
miss a better social life, or have a lowered sense of self-esteem. It won't
hurt anyone to learn ASL (or the sign language of the country they live in,
for those of you international readers.) It's quite common in Europe to
learn more than one language as a child, only Americans seem to think it
odd. I have enough hearing to benefit very much from hearing aids, but I'm
still struggling with the inferiority complex and an immense anger that I
grew up with, despite the fact that in many ways I have succeeded beyond the
average (both hearing and deaf) in language development.
> Am I singing an old song AGAIN?
I'm afraid so.
**************************************************************************
* Therese Shellabarger 11tshe...@gallua.bitnet "Roving Reporter" *
* "Only a potato*head has no opinions" *
**************************************************************************
J McAdams, Generic Student
>>of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
>>mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
>>first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
>
>those (we) people say if sign language is shown to be the most effective way
>of teaching language to the deaf?
I think you missed the point, as did all the following posts to this thread.
Please notice that Kevin pointed to the possibility of sign language (in
whatever form) may be the "first step to effective English literacy _IN_ _THE_
_HEARING_ _WORLD_" (my emphasis). I also see this as a possibility that ALL
children will be taught sign as their primary language, hearing AND deaf. I
think its a great proposition, and needs looking in to.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Chill, Bitnet: jlmc...@ulkyvx.bitnet
J McA Internet: jlmc...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray
to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what
is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:6
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Des Power
World School" which has been mentioned several times lately. Could someone
enlighten me please?
Thanks
Des Power
Centre for Deafness Studies and Research
Griffith University
Janet Lawrence - Gallaudet University
>: As far as Deaf Education - I just see too much Pidgin going on in the name of
>: Signed English and giving those of us who REALLY do use Signed English a bad
>: name. The Total Communication programs I've seen are NOT total at all. They
>: are manual programs where teachers use their voice and say that makes them
>: Total. That is a BIG joke.
>
convey information to a deaf child.... I'm not saying that TC is wrong..
but if it is "any and all" manual communication fits into a TC program.
What I do not agree with is the idea of sign supported speech. Sure, it is
convenient for me (since I am late deafened), but what about children born
deaf?
My biggest problem with SEE is that it is not English. I consider
myself to be a native English speaker, and I cannot understand SEE. I find
that odd. I am near native (as my instructors say) in ASL and I am fluent
in English, but why is it that I don't fully understand SEE even when it is
used with speech? I believe that it is because people are attempting to
contort a visual language into conveying a language that relies heavily on
sound.
In order to be fluent in English, you must be able to grasp the
nuances of the language.. is that really possible with SEE? Sarcasm, play
on words..they both depend on sound...
On the other hand, ASL is a language that is *fully* accessible to deaf
children. Why not encourage children to use ASL? There is so much
emphasis placed on Deaf children learning English. I admit that this is a
very important issue. Yet, I know of no educational program which forces
it's students to acquire a language and learn other subjects in a language
with which they are not familiar. Some hearing children who have already
acquired language have difficulty in school. Now add on the pressure of
having to both acquire the language and learn the material presented in
the classroom...
I would like to see some try that... Maybe someone on the list could go
the a foreign country and attempt to learn something like quantum physics
in a language that they have never heard spoken. Also, they must wear ear
plugs in order to make this more realistic. This may sound difficult
yet I do believe that this individual would still have a head start on
deaf children.... because they will already possess a language base.
The goal of Deaf education should be just that... EDUCATION.
>
>Ok, why do we have to communicate in ASL and talk at the same time? ITs
>quite possible for students to have a teacher who doesn't use voice at
>all, and still have good speech skills. Why try combine both at the same
>time... its like trying to combine French and English at the same time.
>I'm just saying this because you seem to imply that ASL method isn't
>effective because you can't combine both as opposed to SEE.
It is truly impossible to sign ASL and speak English at the same
time. The production of both languages suffer, but most often the
production of ASL suffers more than the output in English.
I'm not sure if any of you have read the study by Gerilee Gustafson (sp). A
few years back, she did some research on sign supported speech (SSS)
.. (most ppl refer to it as SIM-COM). She had 10 CSC interpreters
skilled in SSS sign a pre-rehearsed speech. According to the findings, the
accuracy of the signed and spoken message was about 84%. Now those were
some of the country's best interpreters doing a *rehearsed* speech.
Automatically, a deaf loses 16% of a given message... now suppose the child
decides to look out the window.. how much more of the message does s/he
lose?
I got a bit confused on who wrote what.. but I hope my reply makes sense.
If you have any questions, feel free to inquire... I will also attempt to
get the exact info on Gerilee's research.
Janay
14jla...@gallua.bitnet
NICHOLAS FARINACCI
>Cathy Brandt (CBR...@UKCC.UKY.EDU) wrote:
>: As far as Deaf Education - I just see too much Pidgin going on in the name of
>: Signed English and giving those of us who REALLY do use Signed English a bad
>: name. The Total Communication programs I've seen are NOT total at all. They
>: are manual programs where teachers use their voice and say that makes them
>: Total. That is a BIG joke.
>
>: >I suspect the prime culprit has been too much emphasis on teaching
>: >speech at time when it is far more important to acquire language. There
>: >are still educators that confuse these two, that equate speech with
>: >language.
>
>: I think we do kids an injustice when we separate these two skills. They can
>: go hand in hand. No, they don't HAVE to. And for he ASL adovocates it is
>: impossible to include speech while communicating in ASL. But, as Lew as
>: allueded to frequently it is the combination of these skills that can be very
>: beneficial to one in the hearing world - where most of us outside of Gallaudet
>: do live.
>
>Ok, why do we have to communicate in ASL and talk at the same time? ITs
>quite possible for students to have a teacher who doesn't use voice at
>all, and still have good speech skills. Why try combine both at the same
>time... its like trying to combine French and English at the same time.
>I'm just saying this because you seem to imply that ASL method isn't
>effective because you can't combine both as opposed to SEE.
I fail to see where Cathy said we "have to" communicate in ASL and talk at
the same time. She did say it is not possible to do that. If you read the
paragraph, she said we don't HAVE to. Cathy's point is very true, that the
combination of speech and language can benefit one in the HEARING world.
At the same time, what Marvin said in his paragraph is true, but does not
provide a sound argument to what Cathy said.
>
>: >It makes me wonder what proponents of the "it's a hearing world" school
>: >of thought will say if it turns out that sign language, the preferred
>: >mode of communication in the "Deaf world", turns out to be the best
>: >first step to effective English literacy in the "hearing world"?
>>
>: Am I singing an old song AGAIN?
>
>Yeah, aren't we all? Basically, that's where I disagree with you. I think
>its ABSOLUTELY ABSURD that we have to modify our education methods to each
>child. Think about this... if our public schools did this for hearing
>children... it'll be a mess! Quite simply, there isn't enough manpower to
>get this done. Secondly, its possible to teach a large number of students
>using same methods.
>
>ASL as a language doesn't discriminate. If you have better hearing than
>others, it won't "impair" your ability if you learned ASL then English as
>a second language. Child's better hearing can be used to enhance one's
>reception of spoken english in spoken english labs. (That's the term for
>speech classes at Indiana Sch. f/t Deaf).
>
>Our theory is that you DON'T HAVE TO HEAR in order to learn English (and
>ASL). If you can, so what? It won't make any difference. I bet you if we
>took in a couple hearing babies and exposed them to ASL at an early age,
>then I don't believe that their "learning" curve would be impaired at
>all... In fact, it would probably enhance them since they would be truly
>bilinguals.
I don't believe this analogy holds any salt here. I think it is alot
easier for a hearing person to acquire good English, after learning ASL,
then it is for a deaf person.
>
>It doesn't make sense for us to argue that each child should receive
>education individually. I can imagine it already...
>Principals making decisions, along with parents, by scanning child's
>audiogram and a battery of psychological tests saying, "Allright, this kid
>needs 40% ASL, 55% speech training and 5% SEE in order for him to succeed.
>S/he also should receive cochlear implants to enhance his speech training.
>Take those and call me in next 5 years."
>
>What we should do is create a solid foundation of Deaf Education, such as
>starting ALL deaf kids in ASL as soon they receive their hearing test,
>then we can add options to child's education as we go by. Speech training?
>Sure, that's room 106b. Cued speech? 107a, down the hall.
Marvin, you just refuted your previous statements. In this paragraph you
are making decisionfor children! Why should the foundation be in E Deaf
Education???? Ws they start in ASL, what kind of choice does that
provide for theYou say, WE can add options to the childs education as we go
by. Who is WE, the proponents of Deaf Education? Advocates of Deaf
Education?
>
>It doesn't make sense to get rid of the basic foundation every time we get
>a child that "might" need something different.
I don't think anyone said to get rid of the basic foundation, but rather to
modify it as necessary, to enable the child to acquire best education possible
.
>
>Cathy, as a teacher, you know that learning process never stops until we
>die... then that would be up to Somebody Up There. Why don't you attend
>ASL classes in a college nearby? To learn its structure and syntax, and
>maybe a little history behind ASL. It can't hurt, can it?
>
No, it wouldn't hurt, but then again, maybe she has a good reason for not
doing this. After all, it's her choice isn't it?
===============================================|
Nick Farinacci | |
RMS Technologies | |
Nasa Lewis Research Center | |
yyn...@lims01.lerc | |
The world of words | |
===============================================|
Joseph P. Riolo
and I will get back with more comments. But, let me point out that the
best sign language that resembles English language I ever see is the
Rochester Method. All other signed English language are much farther
from English language than Rochester Method. However, those who knew
and used Rochester Method know that it is not practical - the rate of
expressing ideas is very much slower than vocal mode and other sign
language. From my three years of experience as a deaf teenager at
Rochester School for the Deaf which used Rochester Method between
25% and 60% of the time, I noticed that my English skills were
improved a lot - much more than two other deaf schools I went to. I
do not want to apply my experience to other deaf students but I am
wondering if there is any research on whether Rochester Method is
more effective on teaching English language than other signed English
language. If in fact that Rochester Method is the most effective,
we have to wonder why it is not being used in English programs for
deaf students.
I do not know if any one is still using Rochester Method in the
purest form but when I was at NTID during early 1980's, there was an
old man who was English teacher and from what my friends told me, he
was very faithful to Rochester Method.
Joseph P. Riolo
<ri...@pica.army.mil>
TOM RIGGS
>... best sign language that resembles English language I ever see is the
>Rochester Method...
Well, I was a student at Rochester School for the Deaf for 14 years (entered
at four years old and graduated at 18). I have to tell you that Rochester
Method is not pratical improvement of English... I have seen lots of
Rochester Method products have not written English well. Just a few
of them succeed but others (large percentage) failed to write English
effiecently. I, for example, have worked bloody hard to improve my English
skill by reading, asked for tutoring, picked up some vocabs from others, etc.
That was beyond my graduation from RSD. And many of my friends (from RSD) are
still struggling with their English skill. In my opinion, Rochester Method is
NOT the way to improve English skill. The Bi-Bi approach is, I believe, the
best option.
Tom Riggs.....
RIG...@CUBLDR.Colorado.edu
Thomas W. Burns
>
> I do not know if any one is still using Rochester Method in the
>purest form but when I was at NTID during early 1980's, there was an
>old man who was English teacher and from what my friends told me, he
>was very faithful to Rochester Method.
>
> Joseph P. Riolo
> <ri...@pica.army.mil>
>
I know that old man was Mr. Scouten. He's father of Rochester
Method. He was my principal at Florida School for the Deaf.
He may forgot all students of good understanding at reading each
fingerspelled letter. He would depended on me to reverse
the interpretation for them.
I *do not* like Rochester Method at all. How about
Total Communication as learning tool?
Tom Life is funny but GOOD.
+--------------------------+
| tomb...@bywater.win.net |
+--------------------------+