Best way to develop oral skills?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daredevel7 said:
Don't all deaf schools use ASL (or some form of visual communication) as a means for teaching? (other than oral deaf schools?) I assumed that all state schools for the deaf use ASL as a means to teach the curriculum. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. And you cannot compare ASL as a whole language approach to something like Sim-com using one of the MCE's.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Oh NOW that's interesting. This is what I assumed: all state schools for the deaf have the same methods of teaching and the same guidelines. I feel like the enemy isn't oralism but rather a lack of good alternatives. Isn't it more effective to "beat oralism" if deaf education was improved?

Or do people think that the state of deaf education is fine?
Click to expand...

The state of education, whether deaf or hearing, is far from fine. Hence the average hearing graduate with a 6th grade reading level. If the mainstream cannot even address the needs of the hearing , average student, how can you expect them to address the needs of a linguistically diverse student?
 
faire_jour said:
I don't think that ASL interfers with spoken language skills, BUT being in a voice off enviroment for most of your waking hours, 5 days a week, can. How can a child learn to listen and speak if they are not around it? The best way to learn a language is through exposure and immersion, so if their is no exposure, there is no learning.

Would it be ok if a deaf child got "ASL lessons" for 20 minutes a week? Of course not! That is no way to learn a language.
Click to expand...

Most kids are in a classroom 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months of the year. That is hardly most of their waking hours.
 
faire_jour said:
We have considered in for next year, but the more I visit the school, the less I like the idea. We really have no idea what we will do in the fall. This summer she will be attending an oral summer school that also has parent workshops and audiological evaluations worked in. It will be an interesting experience I'm sure! I think it will also help us figure out what we want to do next year.

If we switch her to the oral class, we will continue to use ASL at home, and continue to attend a Deaf church and be involved in the Deaf community. The only reason we are even considering it is because the reasearch I have read says that you have about 3 years to get the benefit out of a CI. If you are not a "level 1 users" at the end of three years, you never will be. And since you can not learn to understand spoken language in a voice off enviroment, we would be losing time. We just feel like we need to give her the best opportunity to learn both, and for a CI, the first 3 years is when you need to be surrounded by sound and language. If we don't give her the opportunity to learn, we are holding her back, in that area.

It is a hard situation to be in. We want her to have both, and we are unable to find a good way to get support for both. If we want oral only, there are clear, easy ways to get that. If we want ASL/written English bilingualism with minimal "old school speech" services (puh/buh/luh, look in the mirror and put your tongue like mine- style speech) there is a clear way to do that too. But if you have a child who can benefit from spoken language AND you want fluency in ASL.....I don't know where to get that.
Click to expand...

Then why not keep her in a bi-bi classroom, where she will continue to have complete access to the curriculum, and make up for the oral time at home? That certainly would make more sense access wise.
 
faire_jour said:
I read the Ausplan book by Adeline McClatchie and Cochlear Implant for Kids by Warren Estabrooks. I also shared a link to a paper by the Ausplan folks above.
Click to expand...

The link you shared was an advetisement for their program.
 
faire_jour said:
Keep reading. Later they talk about expected outcomes for each category. Some of them shift groups.
Click to expand...

Those are predictions based on categorization prior to implant, not actual results post implant. This categorization does not apply to users, nor does it even apply to the majority of candidates, but only the candidates evaluated by this particular program. And their categorization criteria is quite vague and undefined.
 
Hear Again said:
:ty: Jillio. That was my understanding as well.
Click to expand...

You are quite welcome. The link was simply an advertisement meant to promote their particular program. It was not any form of research or empirically measured data.
 
Hear Again said:
Exactly. Nowhere in the article did they refer to users.
Click to expand...

But the fact that that the categories can change because of their post implantation performance would show that it isn't based on the preimplantation criteria, but on the way they use the CI after activation, hence my interpretation of use, not candidacy.
 
jillio said:
Then why not keep her in a bi-bi classroom, where she will continue to have complete access to the curriculum, and make up for the oral time at home? That certainly would make more sense access wise.
Click to expand...

Because she will be surrounded by silence all day long.
 
jillio said:
Most kids are in a classroom 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months of the year. That is hardly most of their waking hours.
Click to expand...

My daughter is awake literally 20 minutes before her bus arrives to take her to school and less than 3 hours after she gets off in the afternoon. She is at school more (awake time) more than she is at home, during the week.
 
faire_jour said:
But the fact that that the categories can change because of their post implantation performance would show that it isn't based on the preimplantation criteria, but on the way they use the CI after activation, hence my interpretation of use, not candidacy.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is based on candidacy criteria due to the continual reference in the article to A, B and C candidates.
 
faire_jour said:
Because she will be surrounded by silence all day long.
Click to expand...

She will be surrounded by language all day long. According to you, her L1 language. A language that is 100% accessable. In the classroom, that is of the upmost importance. Education is what a classroom is for. Why place her in a classroom without 100% access, thus decreasing the access to the curriculum, when you can increase her exposure to oral at home?
 
faire_jour said:
My daughter is awake literally 20 minutes before her bus arrives to take her to school and less than 3 hours after she gets off in the afternoon. She is at school more (awake time) more than she is at home, during the week.
Click to expand...

Why? She isn't even in kindergarten yet.
 
Hear Again said:
Actually, it is based on candidacy criteria due to the continual reference in the article to A, B and C candidates.
Click to expand...

But they shift. There are kids that are performing as an "A" when they had been put into a B candidate group. They performed as "A-Auditory learner" though they had been a "B candidate".
 
faire_jour said:
But the fact that that the categories can change because of their post implantation performance would show that it isn't based on the preimplantation criteria, but on the way they use the CI after activation, hence my interpretation of use, not candidacy.
Click to expand...

This is still nothing more than an advertisement from BionicEar. The categories cannot even be used to predict level of benefit, because they are based on arbitrary and undefined criteria. This arbitrary classification has zero predictive value. You really should start reading some valid and reliable research to support your points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top