SW curriculum

[Charles Butler]

I absolutely agree with this approach.  When I have taught sign writing classes, I teach the basic building blocks (handshapes, movements, directions) and then we take simple sentences and analyze them.
   
  We build literature as we go, and the books I have read on the SW site have been a delight.
   
  Charles
  

"James Shepard-Kegl, Esq." <kegl at MAINE.RR.COM> wrote:
  My observation is that kids learn to read SW through a "whole word" process,
the same way that most hearing kids learn writing systems like English.
Consequently, for purposes of reading (not writing), recognition of a word
is not dependent upon the word's complexity. In fact, a particularly
difficult to write sign (like "milk") might be easier to recognize because
of its complexity.

In my opinion, SW, properly taught, requires a building block approach so
that children are taught to analyze each word -- thereby developing
important decoding skills.

Also, written composition requires a familiarity with the language itself,
or you end up with an awkward product. Reading material can be developed in
the classroom by having everyone participate in a story adaptation --
writing sentences on the board and analyzing the grammar of each sentence.
It is a painstakingly slow process, but a great way to develop sign language
metalinguistic skills -- and, as a byproduct, the next generation is left
with a developed literature of sorts.

-- James 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20061008/a7846870/attachment.htm>