Talk:Signing Exact English

Untitled
Although there is no article (yet) for Seeing Essential English, it might be nice to clarify the difference between SEE1 and SEE2 here. -Etoile 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead and do so. :) I think it might be good to make a page called Manually-coded English where the differences between different kinds of manually-coded English are explained: eg. SEE 1: Seeing Essential English, SEE 2: Signing Exact English, LOVE: Linguistics of Visual English, Signed English (different forms globally), SSE: Sign Supported English, the Rochester Method: fingerspelling every word while speaking, Total Communication and Cued Speech. And any more that people can think of! -- ntennis 01:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, Manually Coded English is all set! I tried to leave room for individual articles about each form to provide comprehensive information, and just keep things to the surface level in the MCE article. -Etoile 18:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! Now this article needs to be weeded a bit, as to date it has been a kind of catch-all for different kinds of Manually Coded English. Maybe some of the info here can be moved or copied to the MCE page or other pages? -- ntennis 01:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think the Deaf perspective of SEE deserves its own sub-heading?--Cathryn 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes; this article seems horribly biased.Rcwhiteh 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"As with almost every aspect of the education of deaf children, the use of SEE is mired in controversy concerning its efficacy and utility. In a way, it is a slight variation of the oralist vs. manualist controversy which has pitted those that have supported the use of sign language against those that believed in lipreading and speech therapy as the best way to educate deaf children." - Actually, this is a gross mistatement. One of the lead researchers of SEE - Barbara Luetke-Stahlman - has written several articles and papers on the value of signing for forming communication with the deaf and hard of hearing. Those who argue for SEE aren't arguing against signing at all. This whole article needs to be re-written with a neutral point of view, I think. For now, I've just tagged the main section as unsourced. Worldnamer 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There. I've re-written the bulk of the article, and added references. That should hold for a while. Worldnamer 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed a part
I removed the following from the Advantages section, as it makes no sense to me. ''Even though SEE is not considered a language at many schools it is taught as a first language. Are deaf students really learning a language? Students first develop BICS but without a first language many deaf students are not able to develop the language needed to function in society and then develop CALP.'' --Apoc2400 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a paragraph - specifically one naming the "disadvantages" of SEE that were definitely *not* actually disadvantages (just differences):

− 	−
 * SEE should not be considered a replacement for ASL;
 * SEE has a different grammar than ASL;
 * SEE is typically used when parents want their child to understand, use, and read English;

That last one strikes me as particularly egregious; the first two are simply ASL-centric to an extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.120.143 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More recent data
Certainly there is more recent data available? All of the sources used in this article are old enough to drink! The article even seems to be written from the perspective that the articles were current---e.g. reference to the fact that SEE users are now in their 20s and 30? If SEE has been around for 40 years, undoubtably there should be some people in their 40's and possibly even 50's who use it. 20/30's would have been the case when the sources used in this article were written 20+ years ago.108.92.199.90 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Educational Controversy need updating.
I noticed the sources under the educational controversy are a little outdated. Are there new evidence that show whether SEE II or ASL is more beneficial for Deaf children? Ooakin (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)