Thursday, December 13, 2012
Pushing Science’s Limits in Sign Language Lexicon
This article that I read is about how deaf people who use sign language are not excelling in science nor pursuing careers in it, because teachers and students must improvise on what they know already. Words like “photosynthesis” and “organism” do not have signs, which makes it even harder for the people to learn biology or other sciences. If there were not a pre-existing terms for signs, teachers would “come up with a sign that was agreeable with both parties”
Because the Internet has become so resourceful, students are able to watch videos and do research on scientific signs and share them with others. In 2012, the British sign Language glossary project added 116 new signs for physics and engineering terms. A team of researchers in Scotland and a University developed these signs. The standardization of signs will make it much easier for deaf students to understand the lessons being taught.
I found this article to be very interesting and believe that what these scientists are doing is great. It is unfair to those who cannot hear or speak and are unable to understand the lessons being taught. Although it must be difficult to come up with new signs for every scientific word, it is important to always have that option pursing something you love.
Posed for J. Sears
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Maxim Izotov
Article review 12/17/12
After reading Jordan’s article on the problems of sign language with science, I can conclude that overall, she did a great job of reviewing the article. The first thing she did well was recognizing the problem. This is very important, since a solution can only be made when the problem is identified. Secondly, she related the hearing impaired students to the world which we (Bronxville students) already know. Jordan mentioned how they could not pursue a career in science due to their problems, which is absurd, since doing something you love is very important to many people. Last but not least, I found it interesting that Jordan expressed her point of view on the scientists when she said “what these scientists are doing is great.” I could relate to her point of view, and I’m sure other readers of the article can as well.
A couple of things she could do better were obvious, however. I, for one, wanted to know which University was helping the Scottish scientists, since it is very important that they get credit for their hard work and possibly even attract people that would want to help out with the project. Second and last, I did not quite understand the phrasing in the beginning, where she wrote “teachers and students must improvise on what they know already.” How can something be taught if its roots cannot be explained?
My personal opinion on this is that I think it’s completely absurd that in the 21st century people are investing in products such as bombs, when kids can’t even get through a day of school without struggling with simple things, such as learning a new word. Fact of the matter, they might even become scientists and start making bombs.
I read the article review by Jordan about how it is hard for deaf people to practice science because there are no signs for “photosynthesis” and “organism” along with many others. Jordan did a very nice job on this. She told us what the problem was and how it can be fixed. She described how people used YouTube and other websites to share their signs with the world. I also liked how she told us “The British sign Language glossary project added 116 new signs for physics and engineering terms.” I would have liked her to go into more detail about what words are not in the dictionary for sign language. I would also have liked to know what some of the 116 words that where added where. Overall I think she did a very nice job and I like the article and the review very much.
I thought Jordan did a nice job with this review. She did a good job at summarizing the main points of the article. She was very clear and used examples of scientific vocab terms that do not have a specific signs. This enhanced the argument she was making. She was did a nice job describing why the lack of these signs is the reason people who are audibly impaired refrain from the field of science. I think Jordan could have improved this review by giving some more details such as which university was conducting this research and how they were making the signs. She could also have noted how it came to light that deaf people are not involved with science that much, like if it was a study or a survey etc, that way it wouldn’t be so general. I learned that they are making new signs for scientific terms, and I think this will benefit the science community since now there will be a larger pool of scientists that will contribute new ideas.
After reading the article and Jordan’s summary, I felt really informed on an important topic. First off, I really liked how she picked an important (albeit lesser known) issue that is a large issue today and is a less publicized human rights issue. I also really liked how Jordan talked about the solutions that are currently being implemented to solve the problem. I felt it was really important to know that something is being done about the human rights issue. I really liked how Jordan put specific information into her summary. It really helped me understand the magnitude of the problem, and of the efforts, in a more factual manner.
Overall, I felt that the summary could have been more in-depth as I was curious to know more about the issue. I also felt that she could have cited a specific example of a deaf person whose dreams were limited by this issue. However, I felt Jordan really kept the important details of the article in her summary.
I learned that the issue existed. Beforehand, I had been under the impression that there were scientific sign language signs, however I now know that this is not necessarily true. I think it is an important issue and I’m glad I now realize it.
I read Jordan’s article summary of “pushing Scientists Limits With Sign Language Lexicon.” I thought Jordan picked a really good article because it was more effective than reading about scientific news. It showed the reader that science impacts everyone, and even the deaf will eventually make an impact in the science world because of the new science terminology specifically geared towards deaf scientists. I also liked how Jordan related this topic to the real world by stating the current situation and then saying how that situation will be improved because of the new signs being added to the sign language dictionary, so to say. Finally, I liked how Jordan had a positive attitude toward the hardships of people with disabilities. She recognized that a lot of things that come easy to most people are harder for others, but she seemed optimistic in the future of scientific sign language.
I thought Jordan could have improved her article review by separating it into three paragraphs. It was kind of confusing when she just switched topic all of the sudden. She would have made the review more effective by using transition sentences and new body paragraphs for unrelated topics. I also think it would have been nice if Jordan gave a better, more in depth, summary of the article. There were some point where I was not sure whether she was giving her opinion or just summarizing the article. It would have been helpful to have a little more knowledge of the article.
I really liked this article review because it connected science to people with disabilities and it was inspiring that people don’t have to be stopped because of their disadvantages. I really enjoyed reading about the improvements geared towards the expansion of scientific learning for deaf people.
Post a Comment