Malloy, T.V. (2003). Sign language use for deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing babies: The evidence supports it. American Society for Deaf Children.
Linguistic proficiency has been called a central requirement for human life (Magnuson, 2000). Parents and professionals have rightly given great importance to the various discussions and studies concerning methods most likely to further children’s language development. Educators and parents have long debated whether access to visual language enhances or hampers the efforts of deaf and hard of hearing children who are learning to develop spoken language and literacy skills. In more recent times, the discussion has broadened to include the relative merits of signed languages when used with children who have no auditory impairments. Does the use of signs encourage language development in young children? If so, are the advantages available only to specific populations? This article is a review of current research addressing these questions. Conclusions drawn support the use of sign language with all children: hearing, hard of hearing, and deaf, and including those who benefit from technological hearing supports. The information provided is by no means exhaustive, but is intended to serve as a resource for parents and professionals working with all populations of children, as they seek to help individuals reach their full potential.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Malloy, T.V. (2003). Sign Language use for babies
Are the conclusions of this article supported by its data?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sorry that it took me so long to get these articles posted. I've been trying to catch up in some of my other classes and forgot all about this one till yesterday. Next week's article will be posted today.
I did not feel like the conclusions of this article were supported. The author quotes from a lot of studies, but none of the examples seemed to be good research. I think the overall find was that it's important to give children language. I don't feel like there was enough support that sign language was the best way to go.
This article cited many different articles. It was hard/impossible for me to know if the cited articles were reliable/valid without reading each one individually. I felt like the "evidence" that Malloy cited wasn't empirically based. I felt strongly that as I was reading the article I was receiving a very biased opinion.
This article was a very biased summary of many different studies and quotes related to giving children language exposure at an early age. Malloy established why language (of any type) is important for children, but none of the research articles that they cited were very convincing to me, especially regarding the advantages of teaching sign language to hearing children. After reading this article, I was left feeling that teaching sign language to hearing children and children with cochlear implants "can't hurt anything", but I was not convinced that it would give them a great benefit in life. The benefits that were pointed out (differences in behavior, increase in iq scores, and obvious use and knowledge of a foreign language) seemed very weak and I could not see any strong causations linking those with the teaching of sign language at a young age.
This article based its credibility completely on referencing a myriad of studies or journals, often using expert testimony as an authoritative source. As we know, the research with the least amount of credibility is dialogue from a specialist. The articles cited may be well done, but the author gives us little or no information about the type of studies they conducted; therefore it is unclear if it is to be trusted. As I read this article it become quite clear through use of subjective wording that the author advocates a biased school of thought; similar to the character of an advertisement.
The author has selectively chosen articles or other research to support her conclusion -- which is a stretch based on these citations. The author also assumes that the only way to provide access to language for deaf children is through a visual mode, and she's unknowledgeable about cochlear implants and other methodologies. My question is this: If sign language will "do no harm" in terms of speech development, why doesn't every ASL user have perfect speech? Just a thought.
Well said.
How do you get access to the full article?
Post a Comment