Childs behavior

Through oral skills you learn phonics, through phonics, you learn to read, through reading you learn descriptions and language grammar and structure, spelling, and so forth. All this can be achieved with/or without 'listening' and full access to sounds. Yes, without, you may have 'an accent' but the fluency is still the same regardless. It is the access to education that make the difference, not whether you can 'hear/listen' to the sounds or not.
 
jillio said:
Are you referring to the argument I am making in regard to techniques used to teach spoken language or English to kids?
Click to expand...

No Jillio :), I am referring to the use of the terms 'oral skills' and 'spoken language'. The argument by GrendelQ and Faire_Jour is that they are not the same. They were saying that fluency cannot be achieved with oral skills.

I say Oral Skills = Spoken Language.
 
BecLak said:
The argument has been that those who had 'oral skills' did not/cannot acquire fluency in spoken language and we are saying otherwise. Those of us debating on this thread are living proof of it. Also, faire_jour was saying that fluency in spoken language can only be obtained by listening and having full access to sounds. We are also proving that wrong too.
Click to expand...

1. No, the argument is as you put it in the next post: whether or not oral skills = spoken language. No one has stated that those with oral skills did not/cannot acquire fluency in spoken language. Just that these are very different concepts.
2. FJ did not say one MUST have full access to sounds to acquire fluency. Perhaps someone else?
 
BecLak said:
Through oral skills you learn phonics, through phonics, you learn to read, through reading you learn descriptions and language grammar and structure, spelling, and so forth. All this can be achieved with/or without 'listening' and full access to sounds. Yes, without, you may have 'an accent' but the fluency is still the same regardless. It is the access to education that make the difference, not whether you can 'hear/listen' to the sounds or not.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify further:

Also, through oral skills - phonics- speech and also through phonics reading.....and so forth.
 
faire_jour said:
I agree with this too. I want my daughter to be FLUENT in English through listening and speaking (and reading of course). Language is what matters. The ability to understand and use the language, understand riddles, puzzles, rhymes, etc, those are not "oral skills", that is language. To me, oral skills is the ability to say a few words, language is very different.
Click to expand...

Bolded: Grendel, This is what I am referring to. I am not arguing that it does not benefit the child to be able to hear and listen to sounds in order to have fluency in spoken language. My argument is that it can be achieved also without full access to sounds. It is not absolutely necessary to have full access to sound. The argument is that people who only had 'oral skills' without the full access to sounds cannot be fluent in spoken language. I am saying I and others on this thread are full proof otherwise.
 
There are other posts in this thread that mention this. I just do not how to do the multi-quote thing. So, please look back through the thread. Thank you.
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • showover2.gif
    showover2.gif
    42.7 KB · Views: 30
jillio said:
Have any of the hearing parents stopped to consider that what is available today is still based on the principles of the past. The same theory is used, only the techniques have changed. Just like MCEs grew out of the theory of English first, and have largely been ineffective because the technique is based on a theory that has been proven ineffective over time and years of research, anything today that the technique appears to be new but is based on the same outworn and disproven theory of langauge acquisition and language learning for the deaf child is destined to less than effective. Use what research has shown us. Research indicates, even the newest research using kids who have CIs, that kids who are most fluent in language are those that are bilingual. Why? Because ASL addresses the perceptive and cognitive needs of the deaf child who is learning. A child cannot learn if their perceptive and cognitive needs are not fully met. Spoken language does not, and never will, fully address the perceptive and cognitive needs of a deaf child. No matter how well amplified and assisted they are, they still need the visual input to make that learning possible.

All of these methods, past and present, fail to address the basic cognitive functions of the deaf child's brain. Until that is considered, there will be no method that works with efficacy.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, Jillio. It would have been much easier for me if I had access to sign language when I was young. I have had to rely on reading as my visual language.
 
BecLak said:
No Jillio :), I am referring to the use of the terms 'oral skills' and 'spoken language'. The argument by GrendelQ and Faire_Jour is that they are not the same. They were saying that fluency cannot be achieved with oral skills.

I say Oral Skills = Spoken Language.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Just wanted to be certain!:wave:
 
BecLak said:
I totally agree, Jillio. It would have been much easier for me if I had access to sign language when I was young. I have had to rely on reading as my visual language.
Click to expand...

Yes. No matter what a child is attempting to learn...be it language or math or science...the learning will only take place in an environment that addresses that child's needs for getting and processing information.
 
Wirelessly posted

BecLak said:
The argument has been that those who had 'oral skills' did not/cannot acquire fluency in spoken language and we are saying otherwise. Those of us debating on this thread are living proof of it. Also, faire_jour was saying that fluency in spoken language can only be obtained by listening and having full access to sounds. We are also proving that wrong too.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying that at all! But jillio is. She is saying that deaf kids brains are different from hearing kids therefore they can not acheive real fluency with spoken language, and so their thinking skills suffer because they were oral only.
 
Wirelessly posted

BecLak said:
Through oral skills you learn phonics, through phonics, you learn to read, through reading you learn descriptions and language grammar and structure, spelling, and so forth. All this can be achieved with/or without 'listening' and full access to sounds. Yes, without, you may have 'an accent' but the fluency is still the same regardless. It is the access to education that make the difference, not whether you can 'hear/listen' to the sounds or not.
Click to expand...

if it works so well, why are you fighting against it?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



i'm not saying that at all! But jillio is. She is saying that deaf kids brains are different from hearing kids therefore they can not acheive real fluency with spoken language, and so their thinking skills suffer because they were oral only.
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything even close to that.:roll: Beklac understands what I am saying very well.
 
faire_jour said:
But the point that Grendel and I are making is that no one here cares about "oral skills". She and I want our children to become fluent in ALL aspects of English, including listening and speaking it. Yes, it takes oral ability for someone to express spoken language but to reduce English to "oral skills" is unfair and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Another quote from FJ.
 
jillio said:
You are misreading. Deaf children every where have learned some degree of oral skills and the English language through these processes. The point is that the learning is stunted and they actually have a cap on what they can learn and how efficiently they can learn it by the method used. In other words, they could learn much more by using a technique that actually addresses their needs, and not the needs of the hearing teacher and parent.
Click to expand...

My whole point in this thread is that there's a very big difference in the terms "oral skills" and "English language" (or "spoken language" if that is the particular mode in discussion).

Jillio's point seems to be that the deaf, no matter how well amplified or CI'd will always find their learning of and using spoken English to be stunted and limited and inefficient.

Very different discussions going on here.
 
Just to clarify everything:

Beclak, are you saying that if one has good oral skills, he can speak English well? Does this also mean he has good fluency in English?

I think people are switching between two issues:

Does a deaf person who has good oral skills mean s/he is also fluent in English?

Can a deaf person become fluent in English THROUGH oral skills only?
 
GrendelQ said:
My whole point in this thread is that there's a very big difference in the terms "oral skills" and "English language" (or "spoken language" if that is the particular mode in discussion).

Jillio's point seems to be that the deaf, no matter how well amplified or CI'd will always find their learning of and using spoken English to be stunted and limited and inefficient.

Very different discussions going on here.
Click to expand...

Tell me, are you asking the deaf to use their weakest sense to learn when it comes to oral language?
 
Back
Top