Childs behavior

AlleyCat said:
And that is what I said last night. It is different for Miss Kat because she has a CI. She does not need to go through the same mechanisms we did because she is in the speech range. We weren't, even with HAs. We had an entirely different approach to learning how to speak and use spoken language. You can disagree all you want, but it is what it is.

If you don't like how we refer to oral skills because it's different than Miss Kat's approach, then, again, this forum may not be the place for you. There are not enough here (if any, other than the select few hearing parents) to relate to your experiences, whereas all the rest of us, who are prelingually deaf, had it entirely different.
Click to expand...

I believe it is completely reasonable for you to call your experience "oral skills" if that is what you feel best describes it. No one objects to that at all. We are simply explaining that for our children, language is the goal (not just the ability to articulate words), and that is why we refer to it as spoken language.
 
posts from hell said:
Yeah, another thing i am grateful for... not having a set of parents that micromanaged my life...
Click to expand...

Actively involved in seeking out quailifed professional who actually know what they are doing = micromanaging your life?

She is 7, so yeah, I am still heavily involved in her life. :giggle:
 
faire_jour said:
Actively involved in seeking out quailifed professional who actually know what they are doing = micromanaging your life?

She is 7, so yeah, I am still heavily involved in her life. :giggle:
Click to expand...

When I was 7.. my parents asked me if I wanted CI, and more speech therapy.. I said no to both of them, and that was the end of story.

I don't regret that decision one bit.
 
faire_jour said:
I believe it is completely reasonable for you to call your experience "oral skills" if that is what you feel best describes it. No one objects to that at all. We are simply explaining that for our children, language is the goal (not just the ability to articulate words), and that is why we refer to it as spoken language.
Click to expand...

okay, then why so defensive back then? with the words that are spelled out in caps lock?
 
Just to clarify, it was the etc. for our son, and it was some kind of device she used. She did not make him touch his nose or throat, but I did have to use a mirror and she have asked me to feel for vibration before when i was younger.
 
AlleyCat said:
That makes no sense. We would not have good spoken language if we had poor oral skills.

Grendel got part of it right - that oral skills include the mechanisms behind being able to speak.

If our mechanisms, saying constanants and vowels, are poor, then we would not have good spoken language.

I am like Beclak, I am leaving this too. Apparently there is an apparent refusal to understand the very obvious of developing speech which needs to take place before being fluent in a spoken language.
Click to expand...
I think I'm bailing too.
 
faire_jour said:
Caps emphasis words. It is quicker than going back, highlighting and bolding.
Click to expand...

It's also considered screaming. It's also one of the other things the deaf population is more sensitive to compared to the hearing population. Maybe something you didnt know?
 
faire_jour said:
I believe it is completely reasonable for you to call your experience "oral skills" if that is what you feel best describes it. No one objects to that at all. We are simply explaining that for our children, language is the goal (not just the ability to articulate words), and that is why we refer to it as spoken language.
Click to expand...

The two are NOT the same !!! This is like beating a dead horse.

Your child cannot speak language if they don't learn HOW to speak it. Nobody can go from saying nothing to "ball" in an instant. There are steps that take place. Once "ball" is learned, then the rest follows. "I have a ball". But you try saying "I have a ball" without knowing how to say it.

Jag har en boll. Do you know how to say that? I'm guessing not. (It's "I have a ball" in a different language.) You have to learn how to pronounce "jag". Then "har". Then "en". Then "boll". Being able to pronounce each of these words does not make you fluent in the language. That comes next. You STILL MUST LEARN HOW TO SAY THE WORDS FIRST.

How is this not understood? I think you are going out of your way to pretend to not grasp this. We all advocate for language. We want deaf children to succeed. But this success cannot happen without learning how to articulate first! I think as a hearing person you cannot possibly grasp this concept because it comes naturally to you.

Now I'm really done. This is not really a discussion anymore. This is bordering on sheer stupidity.
 
Mirrors can be helpful here. The therapist might ask the kid to make these sounds while watching himself or herself in the mirror. Some therapists use games to make this practice more fun. ---->

Going to a Speech Therapist : A website as simple as this say SLP use a mirror.
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
faire_jour said:
I believe it is completely reasonable for you to call your experience "oral skills" if that is what you feel best describes it. No one objects to that at all. We are simply explaining that for our children, language is the goal (not just the ability to articulate words), and that is why we refer to it as spoken language.
Click to expand...

The two are NOT the same !!! This is like beating a dead horse.

Your child cannot speak language if they don't learn HOW to speak it. Nobody can go from saying nothing to "ball" in an instant. There are steps that take place. Once "ball" is learned, then the rest follows. "I have a ball". But you try saying "I have a ball" without knowing how to say it.

Jag har en boll. Do you know how to say that? I'm guessing not. (It's "I have a ball" in a different language.) You have to learn how to pronounce "jag". Then "har". Then "en". Then "boll". Being able to pronounce each of these words does not make you fluent in the language. That comes next. You STILL MUST LEARN HOW TO SAY THE WORDS FIRST.

How is this not understood? I think you are going out of your way to pretend to not grasp this. We all advocate for language. We want deaf children to succeed. But this success cannot happen without learning how to articulate first! I think as a hearing person you cannot possibly grasp this concept because it comes naturally to you.

Now I'm really done. This is not really a discussion anymore. This is bordering on sheer stupidity.
Click to expand...

the idea is that it is one tiny step at a time. First the child hears "ball" and says "bah" and you say "yes! Ball. You have a ball". They learn hundreds of words that way. Then they start putting together two words "mine ball" or "have ball" and you expand that "yes, you have a blue ball" and they learn more and more.

you don't focus on making the sounds "b" "ah" or "l"
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



the idea is that it is one tiny step at a time. First the child hears "ball" and says "bah" and you say "yes! Ball. You have a ball". They learn hundreds of words that way. Then they start putting together two words "mine ball" or "have ball" and you expand that "yes, you have a blue ball" and they learn more and more.

you don't focus on making the sounds "b" "ah" or "l"
Click to expand...

Yes, we most certainly did. It was ALL that we did at first. If you weren't there when I was 2, then you don't know.
 
posts from hell said:
Yeah, not worth the arguing. I'm just watching this thread and more ridiculous it gets the more im like.. um ok.

Let them be. We just know better. I'm perfectly satisfied with knowing that.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, PFH, I'm so out of here. :bye: everyone!
 
Even Grendel seems to get this. She understands we had to learn the mechanisms, the constanants, vowels, sounds.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



the idea is that it is one tiny step at a time. First the child hears "ball" and says "bah" and you say "yes! Ball. You have a ball". They learn hundreds of words that way. Then they start putting together two words "mine ball" or "have ball" and you expand that "yes, you have a blue ball" and they learn more and more.

you don't focus on making the sounds "b" "ah" or "l"
Click to expand...

WHAT???? :eek3:
 
Beowulf said:
WHAT???? :eek3:
Click to expand...

I know ... :eek3:

I suspect a response from FJ will be along the lines of that "b, ah, i", etc. is not how they're training Miss Kat in her spoken language.

But what we've been saying it's how WE were trained. And if she wants to take issue with what oral skills are about, then she doesn't belong on this forum, but one that DOES talk about how children with CIs of today are trained. There shouldn't need to be a disagreement in this forum about how we, the prelingually deaf, perceive oral skills.
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
Even Grendel seems to get this. She understands we had to learn the mechanisms, the constanants, vowels, sounds.
Click to expand...

I do get that this is what oral skills are, and how important they are ( and how difficult it can be).

But I disagree that this is what our op needs to *focus* on. I think that language development is primary. I think that oral skills can be refined later, to whatever degree is possible/ desired. Most important though, the ability to use a language to communicate. ASL and spoken language can be developed in a 3 yo even if handshapes and oral skills are rough and tumble.
 
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



the idea is that it is one tiny step at a time. First the child hears "ball" and says "bah" and you say "yes! Ball. You have a ball". They learn hundreds of words that way. Then they start putting together two words "mine ball" or "have ball" and you expand that "yes, you have a blue ball" and they learn more and more.

you don't focus on making the sounds "b" "ah" or "l"
Click to expand...

Yes, we most certainly did. It was ALL that we did at first. If you weren't there when I was 2, then you don't know.
Click to expand...

again, you may have, but i am talking about what is currently happening with kids today, kids who are learning spoken language.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



again, you may have, but i am talking about what is currently happening with kids today, kids who are learning spoken language.
Click to expand...

Then you're just about out of luck, aren't you, with continuing your fight against us? Make a new thread, one that discusses how seven (or younger) year old children learn spoken language today. I suspect you would be about the only poster in that thread, if not a couple others. No disrespect intended, but you are posting about situations that do not apply to the majority of us on this board. We are either older than Miss Kat and learned a different method, or others are post-lingually deaf. Why bother with the "no, no, no this is how it is" when none of us have that experience? I would never be a cat lover going to a dog forum and trying to enforce my cat ideas and processes on dog owners. We know and value our ideas of oral skills, and you disagree because you value your own ideas of spoken language, yet you continually shove it down our throats by saying, "this is how it is today." Guess what? We were not there "today". We speak of what we know of.
 
Back
Top