This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

)

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe.

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

)

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) eeek. Rob, I didn't mean to say or even imply that.

I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the
"prejudices" that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody
has those prejudices. But the girl in Chip's story ran across those
prejudices, and later realized what it did to her.

And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of
"Deaf Culture", which they really aren't. Some Deaf people are
prejudiced and some are not (like you, Rob! smile).

His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep
and "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"

THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their
hearing. 35 years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow
students and interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about
wishing they could be Deaf so
they could learn the language or interpret better. The culture was
new and interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they
could do better at signing if they could be part of it. In those days
it was a novel concept that a hearing
person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".
People were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed
funny. Linguistic research is what cleared it up.

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off ---
I wasn't.

Gerrie
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than
once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Very interesting. On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough
> in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of
> ASL. She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
> written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the
> university, that
> we communicated. So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my
> learning, and
> a "voice-on" part. JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I
> "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
> meaningful
> way. Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a
> few
> signs were, while we were on the phone. Nowadays there's Skype:)
> It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
> Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers). In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor
> explained and
> demonstrated the methods used in teaching a second language. She
> said
> basically there are two philosophies. One is to completely throw
> out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL. The other method is to make use
> of what
> grammatical knowledge the students have about their own L1, and
> help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning. There are
> pros and
> cons to both. Some of the choice has to do with what age group you
> have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind. What
> level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of
> instruction? I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-
> speaker and 5
> being native speaker). I've also been told that an interpreter (of
> any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do
> that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion. Just
> because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it
> to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture": are we
> trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies? After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral
> education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the
> deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not? So it's ok to make the hearing
> students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside? I think
> not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-
> based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound. You gave us
> something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break. A few D/deaf from the community summoned
> me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college. They were concerned
> that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to
> inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not
> using
> citational forms in topic/comment order. When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to
> create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the
> real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students
> and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative. I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?” They agreed
> they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in
> ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication. In the class, on the tests, in
> their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost. In “the real
> world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE. When I taught Shakespeare, the
> students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not
> expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too. Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL
> classes? I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use
> of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll
> meet in a
> month of Sundays! That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I
> teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it
> as “a
> wash.” Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity
> to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had. Oh, the stories…
> interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training
> program
> and came back to see me. She chided me for using my voice at all,
> and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program
> when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices. (Of course, I wondered if
> she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college,
> learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level
> in the
> other. I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and
> showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth. Right after
> she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter
> training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so. Immediately,
> she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.” She had gained
> prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several
> years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to
> understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off! It’s a Deaf
> Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with: “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing
> core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic
> more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés. As they get ready to be married, they
> realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes
> of
> divorce. They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a
> regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom
> to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s
> time for
> her to go to bed. They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea
> of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until
> Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit. She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that
> it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores
> the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter. Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be
> alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp,
> “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment. The ASL
> teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other
> languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands. The ASL teachers have
> already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated
> into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
> teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract
> they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture
> demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf
> Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching? Why do people seem to
> fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this: maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations
> from deaf
> people they meet. Stories in their reflective journals reveal that
> this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had
> neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found
> out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
> VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away. My students’
> educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do
> in my
> classroom? The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary,
> chats
> with them after ASL II. What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf
> Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching
> philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider
> philosophy
> asks: “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
> paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

)

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) eeek. Rob, I didn't mean to say or even imply that.

I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the
"prejudices" that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody
has those prejudices. But the girl in Chip's story ran across those
prejudices, and later realized what it did to her.

And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of
"Deaf Culture", which they really aren't. Some Deaf people are
prejudiced and some are not (like you, Rob! smile).

His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep
and "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"

THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their
hearing. 35 years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow
students and interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about
wishing they could be Deaf so
they could learn the language or interpret better. The culture was
new and interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they
could do better at signing if they could be part of it. In those days
it was a novel concept that a hearing
person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".
People were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed
funny. Linguistic research is what cleared it up.

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off ---
I wasn't.

Gerrie
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than
once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Very interesting. On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough
> in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of
> ASL. She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
> written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the
> university, that
> we communicated. So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my
> learning, and
> a "voice-on" part. JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I
> "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
> meaningful
> way. Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a
> few
> signs were, while we were on the phone. Nowadays there's Skype:)
> It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
> Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers). In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor
> explained and
> demonstrated the methods used in teaching a second language. She
> said
> basically there are two philosophies. One is to completely throw
> out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL. The other method is to make use
> of what
> grammatical knowledge the students have about their own L1, and
> help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning. There are
> pros and
> cons to both. Some of the choice has to do with what age group you
> have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind. What
> level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of
> instruction? I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-
> speaker and 5
> being native speaker). I've also been told that an interpreter (of
> any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do
> that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion. Just
> because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it
> to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture": are we
> trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies? After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral
> education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the
> deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not? So it's ok to make the hearing
> students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside? I think
> not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-
> based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound. You gave us
> something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break. A few D/deaf from the community summoned
> me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college. They were concerned
> that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to
> inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not
> using
> citational forms in topic/comment order. When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to
> create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the
> real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students
> and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative. I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?” They agreed
> they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in
> ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication. In the class, on the tests, in
> their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost. In “the real
> world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE. When I taught Shakespeare, the
> students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not
> expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too. Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL
> classes? I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use
> of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll
> meet in a
> month of Sundays! That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I
> teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it
> as “a
> wash.” Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity
> to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had. Oh, the stories…
> interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training
> program
> and came back to see me. She chided me for using my voice at all,
> and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program
> when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices. (Of course, I wondered if
> she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college,
> learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level
> in the
> other. I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and
> showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth. Right after
> she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter
> training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so. Immediately,
> she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.” She had gained
> prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several
> years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to
> understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off! It’s a Deaf
> Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with: “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing
> core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic
> more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés. As they get ready to be married, they
> realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes
> of
> divorce. They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a
> regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom
> to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s
> time for
> her to go to bed. They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea
> of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until
> Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit. She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that
> it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores
> the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter. Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be
> alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp,
> “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment. The ASL
> teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other
> languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands. The ASL teachers have
> already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated
> into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
> teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract
> they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture
> demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf
> Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching? Why do people seem to
> fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this: maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations
> from deaf
> people they meet. Stories in their reflective journals reveal that
> this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had
> neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found
> out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
> VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away. My students’
> educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do
> in my
> classroom? The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary,
> chats
> with them after ASL II. What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf
> Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching
> philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider
> philosophy
> asks: “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
> paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) No worries Gerrie.

I know that there are all kinds of radicals (both hearing and Deaf).
These radicals create contention where none needs to exist.

I know that my hearing students will never know what it is like to be
a Deaf person. So, the voice-off thing has nothing to do with their
ability to hear, but rather for cultural (respect towards Deaf norms)
and educational (two students talking about what they did last night
is very distracting to the entire class while I'm teaching) reasons.

We all just need to be careful to ensure we're not painting with too
wide a brush (labeling and stereotyping). *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> eeek. Rob,  I didn't mean to say or even imply that.
>
> I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the "prejudices"
> that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody has those
> prejudices.  But the girl in Chip's story ran across those prejudices, and
> later realized what it did to her.
>
> And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of "Deaf
> Culture", which they really aren't.  Some Deaf people are prejudiced and
> some are not (like you, Rob! smile).
>
> His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep and
> "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"
>
> THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their hearing.  35
> years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow students and
> interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about wishing they could
> be Deaf so
> they could learn the language or interpret better.  The culture was new and
> interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they could do better at
> signing if they could be part of it.  In those days it was a novel concept
> that a hearing
> person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".  People
> were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed funny.
>  Linguistic research is what cleared it up.
>
> Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off --- I
> wasn't.
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -
>
> Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
> mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
> at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
> The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
> several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
> not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
> students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
> philosophy.
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
>> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
>> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.
>>  She
>> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
>> written
>> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
>> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning,
>> and
>> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew"
>> what
>> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
>> meaningful
>> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
>> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's
>> only
>> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
>> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
>> Language
>> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
>> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
>> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
>> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the
>> L1
>> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of
>> what
>> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
>> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
>> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have
>> as
>> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
>> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level
>> of
>> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
>> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
>> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and
>> 5
>> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
>> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that
>> job.
>> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just
>> because
>> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
>> speakers of the language.
>> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we
>> trying
>> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
>> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
>> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf
>> kids
>> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
>> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
>> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
>> methods are more important than opinions."
>> Gerrie Louden
>> ASL teacher
>> South Hills HS
>> Covina-Valley, CA
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
>> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>>
>> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us
>> something
>> to think about.
>>
>> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>>
>> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to
>> a
>> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
>> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
>> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
>> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
>> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
>> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
>> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>>
>> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and
>> if
>> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
>> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
>> did.
>>
>> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>>
>> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
>> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
>> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
>> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the
>> students
>> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
>> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>>
>> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?
>>  I
>> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
>> voice to teach ASL.
>>
>> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in
>> a
>> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>>
>> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
>> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
>> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
>> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
>> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
>> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to
>> ASL,
>> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…
>>  interesting
>> problematic phenomena…
>>
>> Only one experience will be given here.
>>
>> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
>> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
>> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
>> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she
>> gave
>> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning
>> that
>> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
>> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>>
>> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
>> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>>
>> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
>> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
>> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she
>> was
>> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige
>> with
>> Deaf Culture.
>>
>> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years
>> later
>> she wanted to tell me about it.
>>
>> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
>> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>>
>> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value,
>> and
>> it must be followed!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
>> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>>
>> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more
>> than
>> once.
>>
>> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>>
>> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they
>> realize
>> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
>> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular
>> time
>> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
>> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
>> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of
>> “let
>> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>>
>> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s
>> mother
>> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
>> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>>
>> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
>> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
>> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>>
>> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
>> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>>
>> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
>> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
>> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages,
>> and
>> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already
>> AGREED
>> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
>> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
>> teachers
>> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
>> already signed.
>>
>> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
>> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
>> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
>> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>>
>> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
>> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>>
>> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from
>> deaf
>> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
>> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
>> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
>> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
>> VOICE!?!?
>> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
>> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>>
>> It happens.
>>
>> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
>> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
>> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>>
>> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
>> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
>> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>>
>> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
>> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
>> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>>
>> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>>
>> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
>> paradigm
>> shifts?
>>
>> Thanks for listening.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>
>

)

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) eeek. Rob, I didn't mean to say or even imply that.

I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the
"prejudices" that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody
has those prejudices. But the girl in Chip's story ran across those
prejudices, and later realized what it did to her.

And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of
"Deaf Culture", which they really aren't. Some Deaf people are
prejudiced and some are not (like you, Rob! smile).

His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep
and "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"

THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their
hearing. 35 years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow
students and interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about
wishing they could be Deaf so
they could learn the language or interpret better. The culture was
new and interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they
could do better at signing if they could be part of it. In those days
it was a novel concept that a hearing
person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".
People were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed
funny. Linguistic research is what cleared it up.

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off ---
I wasn't.

Gerrie
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than
once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Very interesting. On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough
> in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of
> ASL. She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
> written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the
> university, that
> we communicated. So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my
> learning, and
> a "voice-on" part. JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I
> "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
> meaningful
> way. Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a
> few
> signs were, while we were on the phone. Nowadays there's Skype:)
> It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
> Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers). In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor
> explained and
> demonstrated the methods used in teaching a second language. She
> said
> basically there are two philosophies. One is to completely throw
> out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL. The other method is to make use
> of what
> grammatical knowledge the students have about their own L1, and
> help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning. There are
> pros and
> cons to both. Some of the choice has to do with what age group you
> have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind. What
> level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of
> instruction? I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-
> speaker and 5
> being native speaker). I've also been told that an interpreter (of
> any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do
> that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion. Just
> because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it
> to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture": are we
> trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies? After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral
> education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the
> deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not? So it's ok to make the hearing
> students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside? I think
> not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-
> based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound. You gave us
> something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break. A few D/deaf from the community summoned
> me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college. They were concerned
> that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to
> inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not
> using
> citational forms in topic/comment order. When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to
> create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the
> real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students
> and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative. I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?” They agreed
> they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in
> ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication. In the class, on the tests, in
> their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost. In “the real
> world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE. When I taught Shakespeare, the
> students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not
> expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too. Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL
> classes? I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use
> of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll
> meet in a
> month of Sundays! That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I
> teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it
> as “a
> wash.” Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity
> to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had. Oh, the stories…
> interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training
> program
> and came back to see me. She chided me for using my voice at all,
> and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program
> when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices. (Of course, I wondered if
> she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college,
> learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level
> in the
> other. I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and
> showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth. Right after
> she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter
> training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so. Immediately,
> she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.” She had gained
> prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several
> years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to
> understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off! It’s a Deaf
> Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with: “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing
> core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic
> more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés. As they get ready to be married, they
> realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes
> of
> divorce. They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a
> regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom
> to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s
> time for
> her to go to bed. They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea
> of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until
> Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit. She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that
> it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores
> the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter. Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be
> alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp,
> “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment. The ASL
> teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other
> languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands. The ASL teachers have
> already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated
> into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
> teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract
> they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture
> demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf
> Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching? Why do people seem to
> fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this: maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations
> from deaf
> people they meet. Stories in their reflective journals reveal that
> this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had
> neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found
> out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
> VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away. My students’
> educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do
> in my
> classroom? The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary,
> chats
> with them after ASL II. What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf
> Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching
> philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider
> philosophy
> asks: “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
> paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) No worries Gerrie.

I know that there are all kinds of radicals (both hearing and Deaf).
These radicals create contention where none needs to exist.

I know that my hearing students will never know what it is like to be
a Deaf person. So, the voice-off thing has nothing to do with their
ability to hear, but rather for cultural (respect towards Deaf norms)
and educational (two students talking about what they did last night
is very distracting to the entire class while I'm teaching) reasons.

We all just need to be careful to ensure we're not painting with too
wide a brush (labeling and stereotyping). *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> eeek. Rob,  I didn't mean to say or even imply that.
>
> I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the "prejudices"
> that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody has those
> prejudices.  But the girl in Chip's story ran across those prejudices, and
> later realized what it did to her.
>
> And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of "Deaf
> Culture", which they really aren't.  Some Deaf people are prejudiced and
> some are not (like you, Rob! smile).
>
> His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep and
> "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"
>
> THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their hearing.  35
> years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow students and
> interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about wishing they could
> be Deaf so
> they could learn the language or interpret better.  The culture was new and
> interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they could do better at
> signing if they could be part of it.  In those days it was a novel concept
> that a hearing
> person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".  People
> were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed funny.
>  Linguistic research is what cleared it up.
>
> Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off --- I
> wasn't.
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -
>
> Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
> mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
> at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
> The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
> several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
> not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
> students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
> philosophy.
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
>> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
>> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.
>>  She
>> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
>> written
>> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
>> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning,
>> and
>> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew"
>> what
>> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
>> meaningful
>> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
>> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's
>> only
>> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
>> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
>> Language
>> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
>> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
>> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
>> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the
>> L1
>> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of
>> what
>> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
>> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
>> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have
>> as
>> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
>> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level
>> of
>> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
>> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
>> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and
>> 5
>> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
>> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that
>> job.
>> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just
>> because
>> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
>> speakers of the language.
>> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we
>> trying
>> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
>> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
>> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf
>> kids
>> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
>> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
>> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
>> methods are more important than opinions."
>> Gerrie Louden
>> ASL teacher
>> South Hills HS
>> Covina-Valley, CA
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
>> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>>
>> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us
>> something
>> to think about.
>>
>> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>>
>> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to
>> a
>> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
>> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
>> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
>> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
>> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
>> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
>> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>>
>> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and
>> if
>> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
>> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
>> did.
>>
>> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>>
>> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
>> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
>> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
>> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the
>> students
>> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
>> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>>
>> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?
>>  I
>> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
>> voice to teach ASL.
>>
>> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in
>> a
>> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>>
>> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
>> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
>> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
>> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
>> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
>> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to
>> ASL,
>> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…
>>  interesting
>> problematic phenomena…
>>
>> Only one experience will be given here.
>>
>> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
>> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
>> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
>> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she
>> gave
>> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning
>> that
>> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
>> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>>
>> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
>> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>>
>> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
>> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
>> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she
>> was
>> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige
>> with
>> Deaf Culture.
>>
>> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years
>> later
>> she wanted to tell me about it.
>>
>> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
>> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>>
>> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value,
>> and
>> it must be followed!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
>> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>>
>> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more
>> than
>> once.
>>
>> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>>
>> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they
>> realize
>> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
>> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular
>> time
>> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
>> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
>> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of
>> “let
>> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>>
>> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s
>> mother
>> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
>> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>>
>> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
>> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
>> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>>
>> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
>> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>>
>> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
>> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
>> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages,
>> and
>> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already
>> AGREED
>> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
>> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
>> teachers
>> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
>> already signed.
>>
>> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
>> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
>> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
>> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>>
>> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
>> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>>
>> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from
>> deaf
>> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
>> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
>> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
>> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
>> VOICE!?!?
>> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
>> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>>
>> It happens.
>>
>> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
>> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
>> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>>
>> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
>> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
>> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>>
>> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
>> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
>> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>>
>> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>>
>> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
>> paradigm
>> shifts?
>>
>> Thanks for listening.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>
>

) I have to agree with Gerrie -

This is still an apples and orange situation, even more so because SEE
is not a language, but a coding system.

What's even worse than that, the coding system has flaws purposely
built into it. I know very little about SEE, but the examples that I
have been given by certified SEE interpreters is appalling.

Examples:

A hot dog (you eat) is signed as HOT (temperature) DOG (canine).
A quarter (time period) in a football game is signed as a QUARTER (25 cents).
Sunlight is signed as SUN (the bright flaming ball in the sky) LIGHT
(an overhead light swiched on)

Complex words are broken down into smaller segments (think of
"phoneme") that match. The match, however, is not on MEANING but
rather on GLOSS.

I've met kids raised on this kind of garbage. Their ASL and their
English both suck because their poor brains are soooo messed up with
the bastardization and codification of a language to supposedly teach
another language is as warped as using a bastardized, codified
English-based form of Spanish to try and teach English. Wacked,
wacked, wacked.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Your point is well-taken. The difference, however, is that a good teacher
> will explain grammar and syntax, etc, and have the students do guided
> practice for them to "get" it correctly.
> This way it's not just "modeling" ASL, it's an organized, overt, purposeful
>  method of teaching a language & evaluating results & tweaking teaching
> accordingly depending on what the results show.
> You either use writing or voice on, and later sign, to explain the rules.
> But I'm describing what everybody already knows:)
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Cherie Wren" <> wrote:
>
> I was referring to the signed (exact or not) English and/or SimCom (which is
> signed English no matter what they say) groups that are so prevalent in the
> education of the Deaf.  The "If we sign English only, they will learn
> English"  full immersion method.  The intentions of the authors of Sign
> Exact English was to provide a method of teaching English to the Deaf that
> was then hijacked by nearly every teacher of the Deaf out there, who used
> these codes in place of language.  The idea was that by immersing the deaf
> child in an 'accessible' (ie visual) form of English, they would naturally
> pick up English.  There are a multitude of reasons why it couldn't work, but
> it is still fiercely defended today.  It is the same reasoning behind this,
> as behind the voice off/no English/become Deaf ASL teachers.
>
> cherie
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe.

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) eeek. Rob, I didn't mean to say or even imply that.

I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the
"prejudices" that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody
has those prejudices. But the girl in Chip's story ran across those
prejudices, and later realized what it did to her.

And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of
"Deaf Culture", which they really aren't. Some Deaf people are
prejudiced and some are not (like you, Rob! smile).

His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep
and "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"

THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their
hearing. 35 years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow
students and interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about
wishing they could be Deaf so
they could learn the language or interpret better. The culture was
new and interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they
could do better at signing if they could be part of it. In those days
it was a novel concept that a hearing
person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".
People were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed
funny. Linguistic research is what cleared it up.

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off ---
I wasn't.

Gerrie
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than
once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Very interesting. On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough
> in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of
> ASL. She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
> written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the
> university, that
> we communicated. So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my
> learning, and
> a "voice-on" part. JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I
> "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
> meaningful
> way. Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a
> few
> signs were, while we were on the phone. Nowadays there's Skype:)
> It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
> Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers). In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor
> explained and
> demonstrated the methods used in teaching a second language. She
> said
> basically there are two philosophies. One is to completely throw
> out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL. The other method is to make use
> of what
> grammatical knowledge the students have about their own L1, and
> help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning. There are
> pros and
> cons to both. Some of the choice has to do with what age group you
> have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind. What
> level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of
> instruction? I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-
> speaker and 5
> being native speaker). I've also been told that an interpreter (of
> any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do
> that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion. Just
> because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it
> to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture": are we
> trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies? After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral
> education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the
> deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not? So it's ok to make the hearing
> students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside? I think
> not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-
> based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound. You gave us
> something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break. A few D/deaf from the community summoned
> me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college. They were concerned
> that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to
> inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not
> using
> citational forms in topic/comment order. When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to
> create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the
> real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students
> and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative. I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?” They agreed
> they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in
> ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication. In the class, on the tests, in
> their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost. In “the real
> world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE. When I taught Shakespeare, the
> students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not
> expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too. Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL
> classes? I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use
> of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll
> meet in a
> month of Sundays! That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I
> teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it
> as “a
> wash.” Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity
> to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had. Oh, the stories…
> interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training
> program
> and came back to see me. She chided me for using my voice at all,
> and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program
> when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices. (Of course, I wondered if
> she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college,
> learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level
> in the
> other. I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and
> showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth. Right after
> she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter
> training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so. Immediately,
> she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.” She had gained
> prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several
> years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to
> understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off! It’s a Deaf
> Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with: “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing
> core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic
> more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés. As they get ready to be married, they
> realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes
> of
> divorce. They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a
> regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom
> to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s
> time for
> her to go to bed. They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea
> of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until
> Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit. She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that
> it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores
> the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter. Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be
> alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp,
> “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment. The ASL
> teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other
> languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands. The ASL teachers have
> already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated
> into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
> teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract
> they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture
> demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf
> Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching? Why do people seem to
> fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this: maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations
> from deaf
> people they meet. Stories in their reflective journals reveal that
> this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had
> neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found
> out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
> VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away. My students’
> educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do
> in my
> classroom? The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary,
> chats
> with them after ASL II. What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf
> Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching
> philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider
> philosophy
> asks: “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
> paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) No worries Gerrie.

I know that there are all kinds of radicals (both hearing and Deaf).
These radicals create contention where none needs to exist.

I know that my hearing students will never know what it is like to be
a Deaf person. So, the voice-off thing has nothing to do with their
ability to hear, but rather for cultural (respect towards Deaf norms)
and educational (two students talking about what they did last night
is very distracting to the entire class while I'm teaching) reasons.

We all just need to be careful to ensure we're not painting with too
wide a brush (labeling and stereotyping). *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> eeek. Rob,  I didn't mean to say or even imply that.
>
> I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the "prejudices"
> that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody has those
> prejudices.  But the girl in Chip's story ran across those prejudices, and
> later realized what it did to her.
>
> And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of "Deaf
> Culture", which they really aren't.  Some Deaf people are prejudiced and
> some are not (like you, Rob! smile).
>
> His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep and
> "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"
>
> THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their hearing.  35
> years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow students and
> interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about wishing they could
> be Deaf so
> they could learn the language or interpret better.  The culture was new and
> interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they could do better at
> signing if they could be part of it.  In those days it was a novel concept
> that a hearing
> person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".  People
> were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed funny.
>  Linguistic research is what cleared it up.
>
> Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off --- I
> wasn't.
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -
>
> Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
> mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
> at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
> The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
> several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
> not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
> students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
> philosophy.
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
>> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
>> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.
>>  She
>> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
>> written
>> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
>> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning,
>> and
>> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew"
>> what
>> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
>> meaningful
>> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
>> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's
>> only
>> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
>> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
>> Language
>> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
>> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
>> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
>> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the
>> L1
>> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of
>> what
>> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
>> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
>> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have
>> as
>> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
>> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level
>> of
>> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
>> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
>> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and
>> 5
>> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
>> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that
>> job.
>> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just
>> because
>> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
>> speakers of the language.
>> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we
>> trying
>> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
>> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
>> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf
>> kids
>> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
>> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
>> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
>> methods are more important than opinions."
>> Gerrie Louden
>> ASL teacher
>> South Hills HS
>> Covina-Valley, CA
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
>> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>>
>> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us
>> something
>> to think about.
>>
>> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>>
>> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to
>> a
>> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
>> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
>> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
>> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
>> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
>> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
>> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>>
>> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and
>> if
>> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
>> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
>> did.
>>
>> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>>
>> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
>> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
>> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
>> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the
>> students
>> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
>> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>>
>> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?
>>  I
>> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
>> voice to teach ASL.
>>
>> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in
>> a
>> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>>
>> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
>> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
>> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
>> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
>> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
>> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to
>> ASL,
>> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…
>>  interesting
>> problematic phenomena…
>>
>> Only one experience will be given here.
>>
>> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
>> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
>> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
>> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she
>> gave
>> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning
>> that
>> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
>> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>>
>> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
>> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>>
>> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
>> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
>> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she
>> was
>> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige
>> with
>> Deaf Culture.
>>
>> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years
>> later
>> she wanted to tell me about it.
>>
>> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
>> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>>
>> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value,
>> and
>> it must be followed!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
>> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>>
>> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more
>> than
>> once.
>>
>> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>>
>> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they
>> realize
>> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
>> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular
>> time
>> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
>> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
>> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of
>> “let
>> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>>
>> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s
>> mother
>> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
>> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>>
>> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
>> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
>> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>>
>> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
>> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>>
>> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
>> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
>> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages,
>> and
>> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already
>> AGREED
>> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
>> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
>> teachers
>> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
>> already signed.
>>
>> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
>> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
>> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
>> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>>
>> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
>> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>>
>> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from
>> deaf
>> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
>> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
>> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
>> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
>> VOICE!?!?
>> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
>> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>>
>> It happens.
>>
>> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
>> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
>> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>>
>> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
>> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
>> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>>
>> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
>> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
>> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>>
>> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>>
>> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
>> paradigm
>> shifts?
>>
>> Thanks for listening.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>
>

) I have to agree with Gerrie -

This is still an apples and orange situation, even more so because SEE
is not a language, but a coding system.

What's even worse than that, the coding system has flaws purposely
built into it. I know very little about SEE, but the examples that I
have been given by certified SEE interpreters is appalling.

Examples:

A hot dog (you eat) is signed as HOT (temperature) DOG (canine).
A quarter (time period) in a football game is signed as a QUARTER (25 cents).
Sunlight is signed as SUN (the bright flaming ball in the sky) LIGHT
(an overhead light swiched on)

Complex words are broken down into smaller segments (think of
"phoneme") that match. The match, however, is not on MEANING but
rather on GLOSS.

I've met kids raised on this kind of garbage. Their ASL and their
English both suck because their poor brains are soooo messed up with
the bastardization and codification of a language to supposedly teach
another language is as warped as using a bastardized, codified
English-based form of Spanish to try and teach English. Wacked,
wacked, wacked.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Your point is well-taken. The difference, however, is that a good teacher
> will explain grammar and syntax, etc, and have the students do guided
> practice for them to "get" it correctly.
> This way it's not just "modeling" ASL, it's an organized, overt, purposeful
>  method of teaching a language & evaluating results & tweaking teaching
> accordingly depending on what the results show.
> You either use writing or voice on, and later sign, to explain the rules.
> But I'm describing what everybody already knows:)
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Cherie Wren" <> wrote:
>
> I was referring to the signed (exact or not) English and/or SimCom (which is
> signed English no matter what they say) groups that are so prevalent in the
> education of the Deaf.  The "If we sign English only, they will learn
> English"  full immersion method.  The intentions of the authors of Sign
> Exact English was to provide a method of teaching English to the Deaf that
> was then hijacked by nearly every teacher of the Deaf out there, who used
> these codes in place of language.  The idea was that by immersing the deaf
> child in an 'accessible' (ie visual) form of English, they would naturally
> pick up English.  There are a multitude of reasons why it couldn't work, but
> it is still fiercely defended today.  It is the same reasoning behind this,
> as behind the voice off/no English/become Deaf ASL teachers.
>
> cherie
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. I show my students the sign continuum and the difference between ASL,
PSE, and MCE including S.E.E. And I show them how ridiculous S.E.E. is.

(For those who have seen Erik Witteborg's videos, he has two hilarious
videos "ASL vs SEE" take-offs of the PC vs Mac ads that are hilarious.)

I find it hilarious, ironic, and sad all at the same time, that it's
now all the rage to use ASL to enhance vocabulary and literacy
development in hearing babies and children (and it works), while
teaching deaf
children by forbidding sign, using signed English or S.E.E. and
endless boring drills. It makes me wonder if the parents who flock to
"Baby Sign" classes for their hearing babies would do the same if
their child was deaf.... but
that's a whole other issue. On the other hand, it is sort of a
"backdrop" for how we got here to the place of debating in this
profession, about how to teach ASL.

Gerrie Louden


On Feb 12, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Rob Nielson wrote:

I have to agree with Gerrie -

This is still an apples and orange situation, even more so because SEE
is not a language, but a coding system.

What's even worse than that, the coding system has flaws purposely
built into it. I know very little about SEE, but the examples that I
have been given by certified SEE interpreters is appalling.

Examples:

A hot dog (you eat) is signed as HOT (temperature) DOG (canine).
A quarter (time period) in a football game is signed as a QUARTER (25
cents).
Sunlight is signed as SUN (the bright flaming ball in the sky) LIGHT
(an overhead light swiched on)

Complex words are broken down into smaller segments (think of
"phoneme") that match. The match, however, is not on MEANING but
rather on GLOSS.

I've met kids raised on this kind of garbage. Their ASL and their
English both suck because their poor brains are soooo messed up with
the bastardization and codification of a language to supposedly teach
another language is as warped as using a bastardized, codified
English-based form of Spanish to try and teach English. Wacked,
wacked, wacked.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Your point is well-taken. The difference, however, is that a good
> teacher
> will explain grammar and syntax, etc, and have the students do guided
> practice for them to "get" it correctly.
> This way it's not just "modeling" ASL, it's an organized, overt,
> purposeful
> method of teaching a language & evaluating results & tweaking
> teaching
> accordingly depending on what the results show.
> You either use writing or voice on, and later sign, to explain the
> rules.
> But I'm describing what everybody already knows:)
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Cherie Wren" <> wrote:
>
> I was referring to the signed (exact or not) English and/or SimCom
> (which is
> signed English no matter what they say) groups that are so prevalent
> in the
> education of the Deaf. The "If we sign English only, they will learn
> English" full immersion method. The intentions of the authors of
> Sign
> Exact English was to provide a method of teaching English to the
> Deaf that
> was then hijacked by nearly every teacher of the Deaf out there, who
> used
> these codes in place of language. The idea was that by immersing
> the deaf
> child in an 'accessible' (ie visual) form of English, they would
> naturally
> pick up English. There are a multitude of reasons why it couldn't
> work, but
> it is still fiercely defended today. It is the same reasoning
> behind this,
> as behind the voice off/no English/become Deaf ASL teachers.
>
> cherie
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe.

This is an excellent topic starter.

If teaching at the college level where students are in my class
specifically because they plan to have a career using ASL, I'm
definitely a big fan of the full-on Direct Method. The main reason for
that approach would be simply this -

Students are going to constantly be running into Deaf individuals
where receptive skills will be tested! This can be with a Deaf person
who is low functioning, has no/minimal English (comes from another
country), or is simply "very ASL" in their signing. By starting right
at the beginning, making students grasp to understand target language
concepts, this helps them to develop a very important receptive
processing skill - one that is not easily developed without using the
TL as the primary mode of instruction.

Far too often I'll ****p into those who learned ASL without being
exposed to this approach and it shows in their lack of comprehension
and their (in)ability to express themselves adequately in the TL.

Now, having said that, as a high school teacher I take a modified
approach (as you mentioned).

However, my reason is different than yours - In a class of 30 students
where AT LEAST 1/4 of them are on 504 for learning issues and where a
number of them are only in my class to get the language credit, this
means some/several students will "shut down" rather than rise to the
challenge. As it is, I will have at least a few students that shut
down almost immediately because they realize that ASL isn't going to
be the "easy A" they hoped for.

So, to keep as many students engaged as possible in the learning
process, I will use English on the SmartBoard (but never spoken)
whenever needed to clarify/instruct a point. The Signing Naturally
curriculum (the new release) has PowerPoints that have English on
them. NEVER in word-to-sign correlation though.

Example -

Today my ASL 1 students are reviewing for a test next week. Here is a
PowerPoint slide we reviewed:

A: Ask if B’s mother has brothers and sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s mother is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Ask if B’s father has any brothers and/or sisters
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Ask if B’s father is the oldest child
B: Respond
A: Confirm the total number of aunts and uncles B has
B: Confirm (or correct)
A: Ask if B has any cousins
B: Respond, tell how many
A: Comment; ask if B’s grandparents are still living
B: Reply

What this slide does is simply serve as a "prompt" for what I'm
teaching and what they have to practice with a partner. What is not
mentioned is that this conversation must include contrasting, proper
expression for a yes/no question, responses in complete sentences,
correctly negating/confirming information, etc. All that must be
demonstrated by the student (as already demonstrated by the teacher).

By the time the students reach ASL 3/4 though, there is very, very
little English showing up on my SmartBoard. In fact, most days I don't
even turn on my SmartBoard in ASL 3/4, except to post
reminders/announcements at the beginning and/or end of class, because
everything we do is interactive in the TL.

You posted a valid comment - "What comes to my mind about this method
is the amount of time it would take to get points across."

Yes, this is an issue, in the beginning. However, once students start
developing this crucial receptive processing skill and as their grasp
of the language increases, then this becomes a non-issue. In my mind,
this isn't an "issue" but rather a "teaching/learning opportunity."



Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Eunice Alade
<> wrote:
> TeachASL Post #2
>
> Acocording to Cokely and Baker-Shenk interactive approach to teaching and
> evaluation is based on an untraditional but logical idea - that is the instructor
> should teach sign without voice and without English equivalents. In this
> approach gestures and American Sign Language should be used. This approach
> also describes the Direct Method which is the use of the target language only
> in teaching the language. This is a new approach to me however, I can easily
> adapt to the no-voice aspect of it. Recently, as I read more and more about
> methodology I try to envisage teaching with the target language exclusively.
> What comes to my mind about this method is the amount of time it would take
> to get points across. This leads to a couple of questions:
> 1.      Are teachers using this method able to keep up with the syllabus?
> 2.      Is there a time when teachers using this method resort to
> interpretation/clarification in English/Native language especially at Novice level?
>
> Personally, I prefer the modified form of the Direct Method which according to
> the authors encourages teachers using this method to make limited or brief
> explanation of certain grammatical features of the target language in the
> native language. I feel this should be allowed especially when teaching ESE
> students. The philosophy underlying my teaching method is the use of all
> available means necessary to help students understand and acquire knowledge.
>
>

)
I think that what we're having here is a bit of a "not seeing the
forest because of the trees." We have two groups that feel we are at
odds with each other, but don't realize that we're actually more in
agreement than you'd think.

What I AM against is those teachers who do one or more of the following::

Sim-com'ing.
Literally talk the entire class.
(Vocalizing or writing in English) This is the sign for ____, and this
is the sign for ___, etc.
Vocalize or write instructions for in-class activities rather than
explaining them visually/signing.
In short, using English as a "crutch" rather than as a "tool" during
the teaching process.

I am NOT against using English to explain grammatical concepts, etc.

Now, if I was teaching at the college level again, I would prefer to
make every effort to explain the grammatical concepts in the target
language rather than in English because it stretches me as a teacher
where I must build my half of a bridge in order for my students to
meet me halfway. I think some of you are getting the impression that
by doing this, we're forcing the students to do all the work - I
disagree. It's those "PAH!" moments that make teaching and learning
(by the serious teachers and students) all the more enjoyable.

Where we might differ slightly is in our approach on how/when to use
English to explain these concepts. I might type it up on the
SmartBoard once or twice, but then after I do, I sign that exact same
thing I put on the board so that my students know that when they see
"THREE-ON-THE-SIDE" that I'm asking them to correctly identify the
time, topic, and comment of a sentence. When I tap my thumb, they'll
always know I'm asking for the time, index finger being the topic, and
middle finger being the comment. I've given it to them in English once
or twice at the beginning, and from that point forward it is no longer
necessary because they have learned how to identify it in the the
target language.

Your student who came back and chided you sounds like a victim of
brain-washing by narrow-minded instructors that eventually made the
student feel like they had to choose between you or them. That's just
plain stupid on the part of those instructors.

The reason I am such a huge fan of using the language to teach the
language is that it gives these students MORE opportunities to learn
from the language while seeing it in action. Think of it this way:

If a golf instructor takes a class full of wanna-be Tiger Woods and
they sit in a classroom all day long talking about the nuances of the
perfect swing - breaking every bit of it down and discussing, in great
detail, how and why, will those students be good golfers? No, not even
close.

How about if the instructor just lines all the students up at the
driving range, has the students watch as the instructor whacks a few
balls and then tells the students to copy that? No, that won't work
either.

A GOOD instructor will take the students out and have the others watch
as the instructor guides one student through the process,
step-by-step. WHILE working with the student, the instructor might
give some tidbits as to how and why, but the focus, at the moment is
on actually DOING it. Then the students practice swinging while the
instructor walks around, observing, correcting as necessary. The wise
instructor will continue to add and educate, bit by bit, as the
students learn and progress.

Even Tiger Woods, when in a slump, doesn't sit in a classroom while
his coach lectures him on correct form. Tiger grabs a club and swings,
swings, swings, while the coach works with him.

Do we need to feel like our students will fail to fully understand the
language if we don't vocalize all the hows and whys to them? Not
hardly. Just like a hearing toddler learning to speak, we start small
and build from there. The parents can't use ESP or baby-speak or
something to put the correct concepts in their heads, the toddler
simply learns it by doing it and hearing it over and over.

I enjoy being able to discuss the hows and whys with my ASL 3/4
students IN the target language, and yet I know I need to use written
English with my ASL 1 students when the situation is appropriate.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Chip Green <> wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
>
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
>
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
>
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
>
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
>
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
>
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
>
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
>
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
>
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
>
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
>
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
>
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
>
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
>
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
>
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
>
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
>
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
>
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
>
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
>
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
>
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
>
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
>
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
>
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
>
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
>
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
>
>
> It happens.
>
>
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
>
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
>
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
>
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
>
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
>
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
>
>
> Chip

) I'm not one of those who say only use ASL to teach English to Deaf,
but I wouuld venture to say it's not a double standard.

When learning ASL, BOTH the Deaf and the hearing have eyes. But, when
learning English, the Deaf ONLY have eyes. The hearing learn to speak
first, then learn to read. So, in essence, the hearing are using a
language (spoken) to learn a coding system (written).

Double standard? More like apples and oranges. *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Cherie Wren <> wrote:
> I find it interesting that while some believe we must never use the native
> language (English) to teach hearing students ASL; those same people will say
> we must ONLY use the native language (ASL) to teach a second language
> (English) to Deaf students.  Double standard.
>
> cherie
> Georgia School for the Deaf
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.  She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning, and
> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a meaningful
> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of what
> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and 5
> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?  I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in a
> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…  interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from deaf
> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) eeek. Rob, I didn't mean to say or even imply that.

I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the
"prejudices" that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody
has those prejudices. But the girl in Chip's story ran across those
prejudices, and later realized what it did to her.

And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of
"Deaf Culture", which they really aren't. Some Deaf people are
prejudiced and some are not (like you, Rob! smile).

His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep
and "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"

THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their
hearing. 35 years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow
students and interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about
wishing they could be Deaf so
they could learn the language or interpret better. The culture was
new and interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they
could do better at signing if they could be part of it. In those days
it was a novel concept that a hearing
person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".
People were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed
funny. Linguistic research is what cleared it up.

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off ---
I wasn't.

Gerrie
On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:

As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than
once) -

Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
philosophy.

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Very interesting. On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough
> in
> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of
> ASL. She
> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
> written
> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the
> university, that
> we communicated. So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my
> learning, and
> a "voice-on" part. JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I
> "knew" what
> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
> meaningful
> way. Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a
> few
> signs were, while we were on the phone. Nowadays there's Skype:)
> It's only
> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
> Language
> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers). In one
> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor
> explained and
> demonstrated the methods used in teaching a second language. She
> said
> basically there are two philosophies. One is to completely throw
> out the L1
> and immerse the students in the TL. The other method is to make use
> of what
> grammatical knowledge the students have about their own L1, and
> help them
> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning. There are
> pros and
> cons to both. Some of the choice has to do with what age group you
> have as
> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind. What
> level of
> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of
> instruction? I've
> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-
> speaker and 5
> being native speaker). I've also been told that an interpreter (of
> any
> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do
> that job.
> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion. Just
> because
> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it
> to new
> speakers of the language.
> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture": are we
> trying
> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
> deafies? After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral
> education and
> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the
> deaf kids
> into hearing people, is it not? So it's ok to make the hearing
> students
> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside? I think
> not.
> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-
> based
> methods are more important than opinions."
> Gerrie Louden
> ASL teacher
> South Hills HS
> Covina-Valley, CA
>
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>
> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound. You gave us
> something
> to think about.
>
> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>
> It was the January break. A few D/deaf from the community summoned
> me to a
> meeting at a coffee house near the college. They were concerned
> that my
> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to
> inform me.
> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not
> using
> citational forms in topic/comment order. When I pointed out that they
> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to
> create
> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the
> real
> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>
> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students
> and if
> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative. I then
> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?” They agreed
> they
> did.
>
> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>
> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in
> ASL a
> usable vehicle for communication. In the class, on the tests, in
> their
> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost. In “the real
> world,”
> they will probably use lots of PSE. When I taught Shakespeare, the
> students
> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not
> expect them
> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>
> I use a lot of voice-off, too. Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL
> classes? I
> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use
> of my
> voice to teach ASL.
>
> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll
> meet in a
> month of Sundays! That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>
> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I
> teach.
> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it
> as “a
> wash.” Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity
> to ASL,
> that some others who heard in their L1, had. Oh, the stories…
> interesting
> problematic phenomena…
>
> Only one experience will be given here.
>
> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training
> program
> and came back to see me. She chided me for using my voice at all,
> and she
> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program
> when none
> of her deaf teachers used their voices. (Of course, I wondered if
> she gave
> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college,
> learning that
> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level
> in the
> other. I didn’t ask.)
>
> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and
> showed
> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>
> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth. Right after
> she
> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter
> training
> program and announced to her teachers she had done so. Immediately,
> she was
> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.” She had gained
> prestige with
> Deaf Culture.
>
> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several
> years later
> she wanted to tell me about it.
>
> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to
> understand;
> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>
> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off! It’s a Deaf
> Value, and
> it must be followed!
>
> Absolutely.
>
> She ended the topic with: “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing
> core
> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>
> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic
> more than
> once.
>
> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>
> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés. As they get ready to be married, they
> realize
> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes
> of
> divorce. They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a
> regular time
> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom
> to say
> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s
> time for
> her to go to bed. They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea
> of “let
> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>
> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until
> Romeo’s mother
> comes for a visit. She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that
> it’s ok
> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>
> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores
> the
> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter. Mother-in-law follows and
> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be
> alright!
>
> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp,
> “Well,
> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>
> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment. The ASL
> teacher
> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other
> languages, and
> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands. The ASL teachers have
> already AGREED
> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated
> into
> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
> teachers
> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract
> they
> already signed.
>
> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture
> demand?
> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf
> Culture’s
> projections on how we “should” be teaching? Why do people seem to
> fear
> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>
> Let me offer this: maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>
> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations
> from deaf
> people they meet. Stories in their reflective journals reveal that
> this
> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had
> neat
> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found
> out
> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
> VOICE!?!?
> Then the deaf person just up and walked away. My students’
> educational
> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>
> It happens.
>
> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do
> in my
> classroom? The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary,
> chats
> with them after ASL II. What’s the problem?
>
> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf
> Culture’s
> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching
> philosophy of
> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>
> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider
> philosophy
> asks: “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>
> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>
> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
> paradigm
> shifts?
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Chip
>

) No worries Gerrie.

I know that there are all kinds of radicals (both hearing and Deaf).
These radicals create contention where none needs to exist.

I know that my hearing students will never know what it is like to be
a Deaf person. So, the voice-off thing has nothing to do with their
ability to hear, but rather for cultural (respect towards Deaf norms)
and educational (two students talking about what they did last night
is very distracting to the entire class while I'm teaching) reasons.

We all just need to be careful to ensure we're not painting with too
wide a brush (labeling and stereotyping). *smile*

Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> eeek. Rob,  I didn't mean to say or even imply that.
>
> I think the best way to put it is that I take exception to the "prejudices"
> that exist toward voice vs voice off. And not everybody has those
> prejudices.  But the girl in Chip's story ran across those prejudices, and
> later realized what it did to her.
>
> And those prejudices are mistakenly taken to be an important part of "Deaf
> Culture", which they really aren't.  Some Deaf people are prejudiced and
> some are not (like you, Rob! smile).
>
> His student heard that you have to "think Deaf, act Deaf, eat, sleep and
> "be" Deaf" in order to "understand" and that it was a "Deaf Value"
>
> THAT kind of thinking is what shames students because of their hearing.  35
> years ago when I was learning ASL, I ran across fellow students and
> interpreter trainees who acted like and even talked about wishing they could
> be Deaf so
> they could learn the language or interpret better.  The culture was new and
> interesting and "special" in a way, and some thought they could do better at
> signing if they could be part of it.  In those days it was a novel concept
> that a hearing
> person could learn to sign in fluent ASL and "with a native accent".  People
> were puzzled why hearing people except for CODAS always signed funny.
>  Linguistic research is what cleared it up.
>
> Anyway, I'm sorry my comments sounded like I was downing voice-off --- I
> wasn't.
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 9:02 PM, Rob Nielson wrote:
>
> As a point of clarification (since it has been brought up more than once) -
>
> Just because a teacher ascribes to the "voice off" method does NOT
> mean they believe in making their students "sacrifice their hearing"
> at the "altar of Deaf culture." To suggest such a thing is ludicrus.
> The two are mutually exclusive. I choose the voice off method for
> several reasons, but turning my students into "wanna-be Deafies" is
> not one of them. Anyone who states that I'm trying to shame my
> students because of their hearing does not know me or my teaching
> philosophy.
>
> Rob Nielson
> ASL Teacher
> Westwood High School
> http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
> http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting.  On a personal note, I did not have a breakthrough in
>> learning ASL (in spite of being with Deaf people a lot), until my
>> mentor-coda friend taught me the grammatical rules and features of ASL.
>>  She
>> is in NY and I in California, and it was always on the phone and in
>> written
>> handouts she mailed me from the classes she taught at the university, that
>> we communicated.  So in essence I had a "voice off" part to my learning,
>> and
>> a "voice-on" part.  JUST seeing the signing didn't help until I "knew"
>> what
>> I was seeing (i.e. grammar rules) and could then imitate it in a
>> meaningful
>> way.  Through the use of the 5 parameters she even taught me what a few
>> signs were, while we were on the phone.  Nowadays there's Skype:)  It's
>> only
>> "my" experience, but it has influenced my approach.
>> That aside, I also 3 years ago took classes toward a Crosscultural
>> Language
>> And Development certificate (required in CA for all teachers).  In one
>> course language acquisition was discussed, and the professor explained and
>> demonstrated  the methods used in teaching a second language.  She said
>> basically there are two philosophies.  One is to completely throw out the
>> L1
>> and immerse the students in the TL.  The other method is to make use of
>> what
>> grammatical knowledge the students  have about their own L1, and help them
>> "transfer" that knowledge to the L2 they are learning.  There are pros and
>> cons to both.  Some of the choice has to do with what age group you have
>> as
>> students, their learning style, targeting their modes of learning, etc
>> The other thing that must be considered is the goal in mind.  What level
>> of
>> fluency are you shooting for at the end of two years of instruction?  I've
>> been told that for spoken languages, after two years' instruction the
>> average student achieves level 2 to 2.5 (out of 5, 0 being non-speaker and
>> 5
>> being native speaker).  I've also been told that an interpreter (of any
>> language) needs to be AT LEAST at 3 to 3.5 to really be able to do that
>> job.
>> I think we need to use methods based in research, not opinion.  Just
>> because
>> you speak a language well doesn't mean you'd be good at teaching it to new
>> speakers of the language.
>> And Chip's point is right about the "altar of Deaf Culture":  are we
>> trying
>> to make our students completely bilingual, or turn them into wannabee
>> deafies?  After all, that IS the point of the hatred of oral education and
>> implantation of the C.I., that the hearing are trying to turn the deaf
>> kids
>> into hearing people, is it not?  So it's ok to make the hearing students
>> feel inadequate or ashamed because they're hearies inside?  I think not.
>> I know, this is a lot just to say "balance is the key, and research-based
>> methods are more important than opinions."
>> Gerrie Louden
>> ASL teacher
>> South Hills HS
>> Covina-Valley, CA
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Chip Green wrote:
>> Greetings, Colleagues, and especially Jason:
>>
>> What you had to say on this issue, sir, was profound.  You gave us
>> something
>> to think about.
>>
>> One of the stories that came to mind was this:
>>
>> It was the January break.  A few D/deaf from the community summoned me to
>> a
>> meeting at a coffee house near the college.  They were concerned that my
>> students were not learning “proper” ASL and felt they needed to inform me.
>> As we tooled it out, we came to realize that the students were not using
>> citational forms in topic/comment order.  When I pointed out that they
>> didn’t either – they modified the HOLME right out of existence to create
>> meaning -- they realized I wanted to prepare the students for “the real
>> world,” the language as THEY used it.
>>
>> Since we were on break, I asked them if they understood the students and
>> if
>> the students understood them, they replied in the affirmative.  I then
>> asked, “Do you miss chatting with the students, then?”  They agreed they
>> did.
>>
>> To which I responded a big, huge, loud, “satisfy-me!”
>>
>> The goal of my college’s administration is to give the students in ASL a
>> usable vehicle for communication.  In the class, on the tests, in their
>> knowledge of the language, classic ASL is uppermost.  In “the real world,”
>> they will probably use lots of PSE.  When I taught Shakespeare, the
>> students
>> had to show they understood several soliloquies, but I did not expect them
>> to carry “thee” and “thou” into their everyday world.
>>
>> I use a lot of voice-off, too.  Isn’t it the SINE QUA NON of ASL classes?
>>  I
>> see nothing wrong with an intelligent, professional, intentional use of my
>> voice to teach ASL.
>>
>> (Yet, I am one of the strongest advocates for learning ASL you’ll meet in
>> a
>> month of Sundays!  That’s a topic for a different thread.)
>>
>> As with some people who post how poorly students did after being in a
>> “voice-on” classroom, I can tell many stories of people coming from a
>> “voice-off” situation to an advanced course in the college where I teach.
>> With the number of stories I have, I would think people would see it as “a
>> wash.”  Briefly, I’d say some of them had formulaic,
>> follow-the-HOLME-to-perfection, lack of meta-linguistic sensitivity to
>> ASL,
>> that some others who heard in their L1, had.  Oh, the stories…
>>  interesting
>> problematic phenomena…
>>
>> Only one experience will be given here.
>>
>> One of the students went on to a prestigious interpreting training program
>> and came back to see me.  She chided me for using my voice at all, and she
>> stated that she had learned so much more in the training program when none
>> of her deaf teachers used their voices.  (Of course, I wondered if she
>> gave
>> any credit to the foundational courses she had at my college, learning
>> that
>> may have served to make “voice-off” appropriate at her entry level in the
>> other.  I didn’t ask.)
>>
>> Then came the day a number of years later where she showed up and showed
>> with body language that she wanted to talk.
>>
>> After the chit-chat phase, she told me a deeper truth.  Right after she
>> scolded me for using my voice, she went back to the interpreter training
>> program and announced to her teachers she had done so.  Immediately, she
>> was
>> surrounded by “high-fives” and “hand waving.”  She had gained prestige
>> with
>> Deaf Culture.
>>
>> In time, she had cause to reframe her thinking, and now several years
>> later
>> she wanted to tell me about it.
>>
>> She admitted she had heard AD INFINITUM, “You gotta be deaf to understand;
>> you gotta think deaf, eat deaf, sleep deaf, act deaf… BE deaf!”
>>
>> And THAT, she avowed, is ALSO to espouse voice-off!  It’s a Deaf Value,
>> and
>> it must be followed!
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> She ended the topic with:  “Chip, I ‘almost’ sacrificed my Hearing core
>> personality on the altar of Deaf Culture!”
>>
>> As I’ve consulted with institutions I think I’ve seen that dynamic more
>> than
>> once.
>>
>> A story that has come from my experience is like this:
>>
>> Romeo and Juliet are fiancés.  As they get ready to be married, they
>> realize
>> that different child rearing practices are one of the leading causes of
>> divorce.  They agree; when it’s time for a child to start on a regular
>> time
>> to go to bed, they will take turns going to the door of her bedroom to say
>> that mommy and daddy hear their cries, but they have decided it’s time for
>> her to go to bed.  They don’t believe in the older generation’s idea of
>> “let
>> her cry; she’ll be alright.”
>>
>> Things are going well after they marry and have a child until Romeo’s
>> mother
>> comes for a visit.  She sees what they’re doing and reaffirms that it’s ok
>> to let the little one cry herself to sleep; it won’t hurt her a bit.
>>
>> Juliet knows what she and Romeo have ALREADY agreed, so she ignores the
>> “advice” and goes to comfort her daughter.  Mother-in-law follows and
>> angrily tells her to go sit down; as she said, the baby will be alright!
>>
>> Juliet looks to Romeo for support, but he says like a true wimp, “Well,
>> Dear, maybe Mother is right!”
>>
>> I’ve had more than one administrator echo the sentiment.  The ASL teacher
>> looks right past them, the college’s values, the college’s mission
>> statement; the college’s accepted methods for teaching other languages,
>> and
>> aches to do what Deaf Culture demands.  The ASL teachers have already
>> AGREED
>> before signing the contract some values that need to be incorporated into
>> the curriculum; then the opinion of Deaf Culture shows up, and the
>> teachers
>> are more loyal to Deaf Culture’s “suggestions” than to the contract they
>> already signed.
>>
>> Why would people care THAT much what some pockets of Deaf Culture demand?
>> Does everybody agree we can RESPECTFULLY dismiss some of Deaf Culture’s
>> projections on how we “should” be teaching?  Why do people seem to fear
>> running afoul of Deaf Culture?
>>
>> Let me offer this:  maybe they find acceptance by Deaf Culture more
>> significant to them than excellence in a “hearing” institution.
>>
>> From my count, about one-tenth of my students face recriminations from
>> deaf
>> people they meet.  Stories in their reflective journals reveal that this
>> one-tenth (maybe more, but it didn’t show in all the journals) had neat
>> conversations with deaf people they met… UNTIL the deaf person found out
>> they went to a class with a HEARING teacher, but also he USED HIS
>> VOICE!?!?
>> Then the deaf person just up and walked away.  My students’ educational
>> experience apparently “ran afoul” of deaf expectations.
>>
>> It happens.
>>
>> Why would places in Deaf Culture WANT that much “say” in what I do in my
>> classroom?  The students can have pretty good, though rudimentary, chats
>> with them after ASL II.  What’s the problem?
>>
>> And again, more importantly, why would teachers of ASL WANT Deaf Culture’s
>> validation to the point they compromise the overall teaching philosophy of
>> the institution that signs their paycheck?
>>
>> As Jason mentioned, newer techniques in teaching foreign languages to
>> students does NOT say the L1 should NEVER be used; the wider philosophy
>> asks:  “When is it appropriate and when not?”
>>
>> “The only thing that never changes is ‘change’ itself.”
>>
>> Will the absolutists promoting ONLY “voice-off” be left out as the
>> paradigm
>> shifts?
>>
>> Thanks for listening.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>
>

) I have to agree with Gerrie -

This is still an apples and orange situation, even more so because SEE
is not a language, but a coding system.

What's even worse than that, the coding system has flaws purposely
built into it. I know very little about SEE, but the examples that I
have been given by certified SEE interpreters is appalling.

Examples:

A hot dog (you eat) is signed as HOT (temperature) DOG (canine).
A quarter (time period) in a football game is signed as a QUARTER (25 cents).
Sunlight is signed as SUN (the bright flaming ball in the sky) LIGHT
(an overhead light swiched on)

Complex words are broken down into smaller segments (think of
"phoneme") that match. The match, however, is not on MEANING but
rather on GLOSS.

I've met kids raised on this kind of garbage. Their ASL and their
English both suck because their poor brains are soooo messed up with
the bastardization and codification of a language to supposedly teach
another language is as warped as using a bastardized, codified
English-based form of Spanish to try and teach English. Wacked,
wacked, wacked.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Gerrie Louden <> wrote:
> Your point is well-taken. The difference, however, is that a good teacher
> will explain grammar and syntax, etc, and have the students do guided
> practice for them to "get" it correctly.
> This way it's not just "modeling" ASL, it's an organized, overt, purposeful
>  method of teaching a language & evaluating results & tweaking teaching
> accordingly depending on what the results show.
> You either use writing or voice on, and later sign, to explain the rules.
> But I'm describing what everybody already knows:)
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Cherie Wren" <> wrote:
>
> I was referring to the signed (exact or not) English and/or SimCom (which is
> signed English no matter what they say) groups that are so prevalent in the
> education of the Deaf.  The "If we sign English only, they will learn
> English"  full immersion method.  The intentions of the authors of Sign
> Exact English was to provide a method of teaching English to the Deaf that
> was then hijacked by nearly every teacher of the Deaf out there, who used
> these codes in place of language.  The idea was that by immersing the deaf
> child in an 'accessible' (ie visual) form of English, they would naturally
> pick up English.  There are a multitude of reasons why it couldn't work, but
> it is still fiercely defended today.  It is the same reasoning behind this,
> as behind the voice off/no English/become Deaf ASL teachers.
>
> cherie
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. I show my students the sign continuum and the difference between ASL,
PSE, and MCE including S.E.E. And I show them how ridiculous S.E.E. is.

(For those who have seen Erik Witteborg's videos, he has two hilarious
videos "ASL vs SEE" take-offs of the PC vs Mac ads that are hilarious.)

I find it hilarious, ironic, and sad all at the same time, that it's
now all the rage to use ASL to enhance vocabulary and literacy
development in hearing babies and children (and it works), while
teaching deaf
children by forbidding sign, using signed English or S.E.E. and
endless boring drills. It makes me wonder if the parents who flock to
"Baby Sign" classes for their hearing babies would do the same if
their child was deaf.... but
that's a whole other issue. On the other hand, it is sort of a
"backdrop" for how we got here to the place of debating in this
profession, about how to teach ASL.

Gerrie Louden


On Feb 12, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Rob Nielson wrote:

I have to agree with Gerrie -

This is still an apples and orange situation, even more so because SEE
is not a language, but a coding system.

What's even worse than that, the coding system has flaws purposely
built into it. I know very little about SEE, but the examples that I
have been given by certified SEE interpreters is appalling.

Examples:

A hot dog (you eat) is signed as HOT (temperature) DOG (canine).
A quarter (time period) in a football game is signed as a QUARTER (25
cents).
Sunlight is signed as SUN (the bright flaming ball in the sky) LIGHT
(an overhead light swiched on)

Complex words are broken down into smaller segments (think of
"phoneme") that match. The match, however, is not on MEANING but
rather on GLOSS.

I've met kids raised on this kind of garbage. Their ASL and their
English both suck because their poor brains are soooo messed up with
the bastardization and codification of a language to supposedly teach
another language is as warped as using a bastardized, codified
English-based form of Spanish to try and teach English. Wacked,
wacked, wacked.


Rob Nielson
ASL Teacher
Westwood High School
http://www.WestwoodASL.com (COOL website!)
http://www.westwoodasl.com/ASLInstructors (teachers forum)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASLInstructors (teachers email list)



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Gerrie Louden <>
wrote:
> Your point is well-taken. The difference, however, is that a good
> teacher
> will explain grammar and syntax, etc, and have the students do guided
> practice for them to "get" it correctly.
> This way it's not just "modeling" ASL, it's an organized, overt,
> purposeful
> method of teaching a language & evaluating results & tweaking
> teaching
> accordingly depending on what the results show.
> You either use writing or voice on, and later sign, to explain the
> rules.
> But I'm describing what everybody already knows:)
>
> Gerrie
> On Feb 12, 2011, at 5:22 AM, "Cherie Wren" <> wrote:
>
> I was referring to the signed (exact or not) English and/or SimCom
> (which is
> signed English no matter what they say) groups that are so prevalent
> in the
> education of the Deaf. The "If we sign English only, they will learn
> English" full immersion method. The intentions of the authors of
> Sign
> Exact English was to provide a method of teaching English to the
> Deaf that
> was then hijacked by nearly every teacher of the Deaf out there, who
> used
> these codes in place of language. The idea was that by immersing
> the deaf
> child in an 'accessible' (ie visual) form of English, they would
> naturally
> pick up English. There are a multitude of reasons why it couldn't
> work, but
> it is still fiercely defended today. It is the same reasoning
> behind this,
> as behind the voice off/no English/become Deaf ASL teachers.
>
> cherie
>
>
> ________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the TeachASL mailing list. Go to http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/teachasl to subscribe. Hello, Gerrie,

A few days ago, I taught the same Sign Language Continuum, but I have a
second name for it: "The Parents' Continuum of Disappointment."

It seems that the parents' definition of "normal" encased only oralism.
Each time the child didn't succeed and moved more toward the ASL end, the
parents were increasingly more disappointed feeling a need stop the denial
and to accept the fact that their child was "handicapped."

Some needed clinical support to handle their grief.

One research study showed that mothers are more in grief hearing the baby is
deaf than hearing the baby is Down Syndrome.

To the class I asked what it feels like to live knowing your parents are
disappointed in you? How high does the anger mount?

To give them a point of reference I draw a comparison between that kind of
hurt and their own if their parents wanted a girl but you were born a boy,
or VICE VERSA. Then your next sibling was the "right" gender, and you were
even more emotionally abandoned. Some of them had red eyes, and I would
venture they "got it."

For me, I have NO point of reference for WHY the parents would experience
such dramatic disappointment.

My Deaf (upper case required) friends are self-actualized, well salaried
(six figures for some), sporting degrees of Master's and above, successfully
married, successfully rearing children, and happy to be Deaf.

What's the problem?

Chip

)