Auditory-verbal therapy research claims

Jillo, thanks for clearing out again.

AVT is meant to be a 24/7 speech therapy in it's purest form, if I got it right. A google search on Auditory-Verbal Therapy at the Learning to Listen Foundation - Homepage for "sign language", reveals how sign language is rejected, and associated with failure:

"sign language" site:www.learningtolisten.org - Google Search

Another source is wikipedia.org:
Auditory-verbal therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It says "..,discouraging reliance on visual communication,..".

Though it does not say wether one should never use sign language or not. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

I notice some parents choose both sign language and speech, and AVT certified therapists seems to accept this, so in practice, it is looks like it is not that 24/7 for some kids, but for for some kids it is.

I wonder if those parents, or the therapist, who choose 24/7 AVT can be sued for child abuse, as kids risk a late development in language, and cognitive development, if speech therapy fails, and kids are introduced to sign language after an age of 5-6 years. The evidence lies in papers from higher learning centres(especially linqustics departments at universities) that sign language in early childhood is good for language development, and does not hurt speech, while there is no research that proves the opposite? We see more hearing preschools using sign language, while it is banned for some of the deaf kids on AVT programs.
 
flip said:
Jillo, thanks for clearing out again.

AVT is meant to be a 24/7 speech therapy in it's purest form, if I got it right. A google search on Auditory-Verbal Therapy at the Learning to Listen Foundation - Homepage for "sign language", reveals how sign language is rejected, and associated with failure:

"sign language" site:www.learningtolisten.org - Google Search

Another source is wikipedia.org:
Auditory-verbal therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It says "..,discouraging reliance on visual communication,..".

Though it does not say wether one should never use sign language or not. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

I notice some parents choose both sign language and speech, and AVT certified therapists seems to accept this, so in practice, it is looks like it is not that 24/7 for some kids, but for for some kids it is.

I wonder if those parents, or the therapist, who choose 24/7 AVT can be sued for child abuse, as kids risk a late development in language, and cognitive development, if speech therapy fails, and kids are introduced to sign language after an age of 5-6 years. The evidence lies in papers from higher learning centres(especially linqustics departments at universities) that sign language in early childhood is good for language development, and does not hurt speech, while there is no research that proves the opposite? We see more hearing preschools using sign language, while it is banned for some of the deaf kids on AVT programs.
Click to expand...


I have students who came from programs similiar to this and most of them are older than the age of 5 and severely delayed in language. That's why I am trying to go out there to advocate using both approaches to eliminate that risk of the child not succeeding with speech therapy and being delayed in language development.
 
shel90 said:
I have students who came from programs similiar to this and most of them are older than the age of 5 and severely delayed in language. That's why I am trying to go out there to advocate using both approaches to eliminate that risk of the child not succeeding with speech therapy and being delayed in language development.
Click to expand...

Exactly! We get so caught up in the method of communication, that we totally forget that the important issue is that a child can communicate, not how they communicate! Delayed language is not inherent in deaf chioldre--it is the result of the linguistic environment. If an enriched environment is not provideed, the child will be delayed. Provide an environment where language is acquired naturally, then language is not delayed. Supported by the fact that Deaf of Deaf test higher on language proficiency tests.
 
jillio said:
Exactly! We get so caught up in the method of communication, that we totally forget that the important issue is that a child can communicate, not how they communicate! Delayed language is not inherent in deaf chioldre--it is the result of the linguistic environment. If an enriched environment is not provideed, the child will be delayed. Provide an environment where language is acquired naturally, then language is not delayed. Supported by the fact that Deaf of Deaf test higher on language proficiency tests.
Click to expand...

So true..only about 13 elementary students at my work passed the MSA (Maryland State Assessment) and I believe all that were from deaf families were in that group. Need I say more?
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
Literacy skills are not dependent upon auditory function or input. They are dependant upon language input. The auditory centers in the brain do not atrophe or cease to fuction due to lack of auditory stimuli. If language is in a visual mode, the brain adapts to such, and auditory centers take over the processing of visual language input.
Click to expand...

A good point. That leads me to the question:

If the brain adapts to language that is visual-centric (ASL) but does not have access to the auditory mechanism, does it as easily have the ability to process language input from a language that is dominantly verbal (English)?

(An interesting side thought: I recall reading a Mayer & Wells paper that cited separate findings that deaf children who learn English visually have much more difficulty with grammar than their hearing peers. The paper also noted that those deaf children had better spelling.)
 
Endymion said:
A good point. That leads me to the question:

If the brain adapts to language that is visual-centric (ASL) but does not have access to the auditory mechanism, does it as easily have the ability to process language input from a language that is dominantly verbal (English)?

(An interesting side thought: I recall reading a Mayer & Wells paper that cited separate findings that deaf children who learn English visually have much more difficulty with grammar than their hearing peers. The paper also noted that those deaf children had better spelling.)
Click to expand...

Well if u compare any deaf children to hearing children when it comes to reading and writing, it will always be the deaf children that have more difficulty. I mean..think about it..hearing children have access to English whether it is directly or indirectly just from the simple fact they hear it around them so the ability to decode English is there while deaf children dont have that ability. Makes sense that deaf children despite what approaches are used to teach them develop literacy skills will have to work harder at their reading and writing skills.
 
Endymion said:
A good point. That leads me to the question:

If the brain adapts to language that is visual-centric (ASL) but does not have access to the auditory mechanism, does it as easily have the ability to process language input from a language that is dominantly verbal (English)?

(An interesting side thought: I recall reading a Mayer & Wells paper that cited separate findings that deaf children who learn English visually have much more difficulty with grammar than their hearing peers. The paper also noted that those deaf children had better spelling.)
Click to expand...

No, the processing is not as easy adapted. There is a reason for the increase in spelling accuracy. When we (hearing or deaf) recognize a printed word, we do not recognize it (once it has become familiar) as composed of individual letters, but rather as a pattern formed by those letters. Individuals who are visually /spatially oriented recognize inconsistencies in the pattern. For instance, I am hearing, but if I see a misspelled word in a newspaper or book, it jumps out at me. I then have to go through the process of breaking it down letter by letter to know exactly what is wrong. Initiallly, I only know that the pattern formed by the letters is incorrect. Deaf individuals are very adept at pattern recognition. Even fingerspelling forms more of a fluid pattern than a breakdown in individual letter composition. Therefore, spelling is a skill consistent with a visual/spatial cognitive processing. Grammar, however, is so inconsistent as to form no recognizable patterns in the way that individually spelled words do. Written grammar has to be changed into an auditory form often times before errors are recognized. We've all heard people say, "That doesn't sound right." when referring to an incorrectly structured sentence. But you do not hear "That doesn't look right." in reference to grammar--only to spelling.

Hope I haven't given you more info that you wanted--but you seem to be interested in the cognitive impact of language differences. The educational implications are so complicated and include so much more than an inability to hear sound, or the innane idea of manually coded English systems to increase literacy.
 
Jillio,

Too much information? Not at all! I encourage more technical terms. This is a hobby of mine, especially since I'm Deaf.

My specialty is economics. When I think of these issues, I look at them from a mix of interesting angles. Here's one: if the difficulty of English grammar acquisition is X more than than a valid general population mean, then then Y more deaf people will not acquire level Z of English language fluency.

Or a marginal analysis might help: If we can decrease the difficulty by one unit, then A more deaf people will achieve level Z. Then I think about all sorts of other things. Health utility of decreasing difficulty by one unit, income utility, educational utility, quality of life, and so forth.

Economics exists in a generally theoretical framework, however, and "decreasing difficulty by one unit" isn't that easy. I'm also conducting research right now doing some things slightly related to this. Fun stuff.

jillio said:
No, the processing is not as easy adapted. There is a reason for the increase in spelling accuracy. When we (hearing or deaf) recognize a printed word, we do not recognize it (once it has become familiar) as composed of individual letters, but rather as a pattern formed by those letters. Individuals who are visually /spatially oriented recognize inconsistencies in the pattern. For instance, I am hearing, but if I see a misspelled word in a newspaper or book, it jumps out at me. I then have to go through the process of breaking it down letter by letter to know exactly what is wrong. Initiallly, I only know that the pattern formed by the letters is incorrect. Deaf individuals are very adept at pattern recognition. Even fingerspelling forms more of a fluid pattern than a breakdown in individual letter composition. Therefore, spelling is a skill consistent with a visual/spatial cognitive processing. Grammar, however, is so inconsistent as to form no recognizable patterns in the way that individually spelled words do. Written grammar has to be changed into an auditory form often times before errors are recognized. We've all heard people say, "That doesn't sound right." when referring to an incorrectly structured sentence. But you do not hear "That doesn't look right." in reference to grammar--only to spelling.

Hope I haven't given you more info that you wanted--but you seem to be interested in the cognitive impact of language differences. The educational implications are so complicated and include so much more than an inability to hear sound, or the innane idea of manually coded English systems to increase literacy.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, I do have a response. On the TLC site, they say that research has indicated that deaf kids make the exact same grammer and syntax errors as do speakers of other languages. It's basicly a SECOND LANGUGE aqustiion thing..........
 
Endymion said:
Jillio,

Too much information? Not at all! I encourage more technical terms. This is a hobby of mine, especially since I'm Deaf.

My specialty is economics. When I think of these issues, I look at them from a mix of interesting angles. Here's one: if the difficulty of English grammar acquisition is X more than than a valid general population mean, then then Y more deaf people will not acquire level Z of English language fluency.

Or a marginal analysis might help: If we can decrease the difficulty by one unit, then A more deaf people will achieve level Z. Then I think about all sorts of other things. Health utility of decreasing difficulty by one unit, income utility, educational utility, quality of life, and so forth.

Economics exists in a generally theoretical framework, however, and "decreasing difficulty by one unit" isn't that easy. I'm also conducting research right now doing some things slightly related to this. Fun stuff.
Click to expand...

My knowledge of economic theories is sadly limited to the way those theories apply and are adapted to psychological and sociological phenomena. I've a good grasp of statistics, and social psychology uses many economic theories to explain both group and individual decision making processes. Sociology uses an adaptation of Marxist theory to explain deviance and criminality, as well. I'd like to hear more about your research. Always up for learning something new!
 
*nods* And it sucks that it's that way. I think about all the smart deaf people I know who can do so much, but are limited by the perceptions of other people about their English.

The marketer in me is wondering how that could be tackled!

shel90 said:
Well if u compare any deaf children to hearing children when it comes to reading and writing, it will always be the deaf children that have more difficulty. I mean..think about it..hearing children have access to English whether it is directly or indirectly just from the simple fact they hear it around them so the ability to decode English is there while deaf children dont have that ability. Makes sense that deaf children despite what approaches are used to teach them develop literacy skills will have to work harder at their reading and writing skills.
Click to expand...
 
Endymion said:
*nods* And it sucks that it's that way. I think about all the smart deaf people I know who can do so much, but are limited by the perceptions of other people about their English.

The marketer in me is wondering how that could be tackled!
Click to expand...

If u come up with something, let me know! Yea, I used to think that deaf people with poor English skills were not so smart until I learned ASL and then started interacting with them. I was floored by how intelligent many of them were despite their inability to show it through their writings.

Your and Jillo's writing style is the kind I would love to achieve someday. I can understand the message you both are conveying but I cant express my thoughts to that level of writing. Know what I mean? I try to write using a lot of terminology but it just never comes out right. Oh well...
 
jillio said:
No, the processing is not as easy adapted. There is a reason for the increase in spelling accuracy. When we (hearing or deaf) recognize a printed word, we do not recognize it (once it has become familiar) as composed of individual letters, but rather as a pattern formed by those letters. Individuals who are visually /spatially oriented recognize inconsistencies in the pattern. For instance, I am hearing, but if I see a misspelled word in a newspaper or book, it jumps out at me. I then have to go through the process of breaking it down letter by letter to know exactly what is wrong. Initiallly, I only know that the pattern formed by the letters is incorrect. Deaf individuals are very adept at pattern recognition. Even fingerspelling forms more of a fluid pattern than a breakdown in individual letter composition. Therefore, spelling is a skill consistent with a visual/spatial cognitive processing. Grammar, however, is so inconsistent as to form no recognizable patterns in the way that individually spelled words do. Written grammar has to be changed into an auditory form often times before errors are recognized. We've all heard people say, "That doesn't sound right." when referring to an incorrectly structured sentence. But you do not hear "That doesn't look right." in reference to grammar--only to spelling.

Hope I haven't given you more info that you wanted--but you seem to be interested in the cognitive impact of language differences. The educational implications are so complicated and include so much more than an inability to hear sound, or the innane idea of manually coded English systems to increase literacy.
Click to expand...

Very nice explanation on the grammer bit. I can recall how that flummoxed me for the longest time until I got the "hang" of it in my early 20's. Most of the time you are correct one must sound it out to catch those types of errors. I often find them reading but I will either sound them out or rewrite the sentence in different ways to make sure.
 
Endymion said:
*nods* And it sucks that it's that way. I think about all the smart deaf people I know who can do so much, but are limited by the perceptions of other people about their English.

The marketer in me is wondering how that could be tackled!
Click to expand...

This problem is not exclusive to deaf people. Anybody with poor English skills are subject to that kind of perception by others. I guess first impressions will always be important regardless whether deserved or not.
 
shel90 said:
Well if u compare any deaf children to hearing children when it comes to reading and writing, it will always be the deaf children that have more difficulty. I mean..think about it..hearing children have access to English whether it is directly or indirectly just from the simple fact they hear it around them so the ability to decode English is there while deaf children dont have that ability. Makes sense that deaf children despite what approaches are used to teach them develop literacy skills will have to work harder at their reading and writing skills.
Click to expand...


That's not always the case Shel. I am a volunteer at my daughters school and that was not the case at all. When the kids started blending words together and reading and writing sentences, i thought Kayla would have a harder time then some of the other kids. She is one of the top readers in her class. Her teacher and i are so proud of her. She is very determined and always has been.
 
kayla123 said:
My daughter actually enjoys her AV therapy.She only sees her therapist once a week, but she enjoys her lessons at home as well. There are so many times where she pulls out the therapy games and comes to me and wants to play what she calls the "listening games".Even in an informal setting when she dose'nt pronounce something right and i correct her, she is very eager to learn to say it the right way. I really think it's the way you go about doing it, like to her it's playing games rather than a speech lesson. I don't know how speech lessons were years ago but when i am giving her speech lessons, we are playing bingo, board games or barbies or whatever. You don't have to be a drill sargeant about it, just make it fun.
Click to expand...

Kayla,

You are so right! When they talk about 24/7 it should not be taken literally but meant to incorporate what is being currently stressed in actual therapy into the normal routine of your child's life.

My daughter loved playing barbies and so my wife and her would sit and play for hours-all the while she was getting a speech and language lesson and had no idea but she had a great time! Same thing when they would go to the beach in the summer and talked about the sand, the water, the seagulls etc. There is nothing wrong with spending time talking to your children!
Rick
 
sr171soars said:
Very nice explanation on the grammer bit. I can recall how that flummoxed me for the longest time until I got the "hang" of it in my early 20's. Most of the time you are correct one must sound it out to catch those types of errors. I often find them reading but I will either sound them out or rewrite the sentence in different ways to make sure.
Click to expand...

Thanks!:ty:
 
kayla123 said:
That's not always the case Shel. I am a volunteer at my daughters school and that was not the case at all. When the kids started blending words together and reading and writing sentences, i thought Kayla would have a harder time then some of the other kids. She is one of the top readers in her class. Her teacher and i are so proud of her. She is very determined and always has been.
Click to expand...

There will always be exceptions to the rule. Shel is speaking about the majority of deaf students. And the fact that she is determined plays out in her favor. A determined child is willing to tackle that which is difficult. Doesn't make the task less difficult, just means that the child is more intrinsically motivated.
 
jillio said:
There will always be exceptions to the rule. Shel is speaking about the majority of deaf students. And the fact that she is determined plays out in her favor. A determined child is willing to tackle that which is difficult. Doesn't make the task less difficult, just means that the child is more intrinsically motivated.
Click to expand...

Thank u, Jillo. That's the problem I faced growing up with people making assumptions that due to my success with oral language, it will work for all deaf/hoh children. I know very well that is a very wrong assumption and I learned that at a young age when the same approach that worked for me didn't work for my deaf brother. Mind u, we both have 120 dB bilaretal hearing loss. I get so tired of people using me as an example or as a poster child for oral prgrams cuz I was an exception. Also, people forgot to include socio-emotional factors. I grew up with so mch emotional baggage from all the expectations put on me that I needed therapy to help me accept my deafness and the fact that I will never become hearing. Also, I needed ASL growing up and it angers me that I was denied it. I am so glad that I learned it.
 
Welcome! We always seem to be on the same page with the educational issues, and the fact that there are many, many variables involved that detrmine success.
 
Back
Top