Ci And Background Noise

[jillio]

Sorry I'm a bit lost. I didn't think we were talking about justifying strictly oral approaches but rather about the validity of parental observations regarding the benefit of their children's CIs bilateral or otherwise.

The validity of those studies as used to justify oral approaches. When they are cited as support for such.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

What I accomplished with my HA first and now with my CI probably makes me a legend but I'm not the only one but we are few (severe to profound HOHers who never had full hearing ever). But to achieve what I did required me to totally focus on the oral route period. Sign would simply have detracted from my goals. Why? Too many ways to "cheat" and not fully develop the any one primary focus. You heard of the phrase "jack of all trades but the master of none". I succeeded because I had no other way to do it. I can say probably since I was in my mid to late twenties that I could learn sign without being a detriment to my oral abilities as they were finally and fully established within me.

I will be honest in admitting that probably the way I'm wired to understand my world with amplified hearing is superb and the main reason for my success along with decent brain power to make sense of partial information. I'm sure that goes a long way explaining my accomplishment if nothing else does.

Please don't misunderstand me. I support providing each and every child the full kaboodle of tools. Just realize there are going to some children (like myself) that does better focusing on one path especially if they are motivated and have the ability to do it. It is one thing if they are not but another if they can do it. Don't deny them their glory...their moment in the sun to achieve what few can achieve!!! Few people can understand what it is like for some of us look back and see what where we were and where we are now. We proved the naysayers wrong! We proved those who believe us right! Nobody can take this away from us...nobody!

Your statement is so amazing. This is what I have been trying to say. The oral path is not for everybody but if this is what you want you have to go all out. I am so happy for you

 

[R2D2]

We say that sign is the natural language of the deaf because, even if a deaf child is implanted at the age of say, 6 months, they have spent the first 6 monthsof their life interpreting their world from a visual perspective. The cognitive pathways have already begun to develop. And that continues, even in an implanted child as they use visual cues to fill in the auditory gaps. It is a natural strenth, and therefore, should be cpaitalized on. That is the foundation of the advocacy for the use of sign. Use a strength to help compensate for a weakness. Using the weakness to overcome the weakness simply does not make sense. Would you ask a blind child not to use their tactile sense to learn written language in the form of Braille. I doubt seriously whether anyone would find the logic in telling that child they must use their visual sense to read the words, and not thir tactile sense. So why would you do that to a deaf child?

I would prefer to say that sign is a more natural language for deaf children to acquire and I would agree that visual cues are a strength to any deaf person and this should not be held back. These factors are factual and can be empirically observed.

I stop however at saying that sign is THE natural language for the deaf, because it is so blanket and non individualized. It is like saying that all black people have da natural rhythm.

 

[R2D2]

The validity of those studies as used to justify oral approaches. When they are cited as support for such.

Can you give me the post numbers in this thread please where the studies are being used to support oral only approaches regardless of the wishes or needs of the child? I must have overlooked them.

 

[jillio]

I would prefer to say that sign is a more natural language for deaf children to acquire and I would agree that visual cues are a strength to any deaf person and this should not be held back. These factors are factual and can be empirically observed.

I stop however at saying that sign is THE natural language for the deaf, because it is so blanket and non individualized. It is like saying that all black people have da natural rhythm.

Okay,I'll accept a more natural language. It makes the same point. And your comment regarding black people is a stereotype, and not something that has been studied empirically. But it made me laugh anyway!

 

[jillio]

Can you give me the post numbers in this thread please where the studies are being used to support oral only approaches regardless of the wishes or needs of the child? I must have overlooked them.

did not say anything about post numbers or this thread. I said that studies like that are used to justify the oral approach, and therefore, validity must be questioned. Studies of this nature are used to justify the oral approach within the educational and audiological fields all the time.

 

[neecy]

all the studies and their validity aside, jillio, what about people like sr171soars who just said that the reason he is the way he is as successful with hearing with his CI now, is BECAUSE of the focus on the oral method? He admits fully he wouldn't be the way he is now if it hadn't been for going all-out orally, and had instead been forced to focus primarily on sign language. Doesn't that show that for some children, the oral-only approach is the BEST approach? And wouldn't it stand to show that when a child shows the preference for oral, its best to encourage that? Child-lead communication (like Lotte using voice as HER preference, even when given the opportunity to use both,) should be encouraged, instead of saying "oh NO NO NO - its not your NATURAL language - we can't have that - you must use sign instead, because we've decided that's best for you!!!" (I realize people have said that about sign too - but again - its not RIGHT, and two wrongs don't make a right, either.)

 

[shel90]

all the studies and their validity aside, jillio, what about people like sr171soars who just said that the reason he is the way he is as successful with hearing with his CI now, is BECAUSE of the focus on the oral method? He admits fully he wouldn't be the way he is now if it hadn't been for going all-out orally, and had instead been forced to focus primarily on sign language. Doesn't that show that for some children, the oral-only approach is the BEST approach? And wouldn't it stand to show that when a child shows the preference for oral, its best to encourage that? Child-lead communication (like Lotte using voice as HER preference, even when given the opportunity to use both,) should be encouraged, instead of saying "oh NO NO NO - its not your NATURAL language - we can't have that - you must use sign instead, because we've decided that's best for you!!!" (I realize people have said that about sign too - but again - its not RIGHT, and two wrongs don't make a right, either.)

Jillo never said NO to using oral language. She is saying to use both when the children are young to ensure that no child gets deprived of a language. Since u are late deafened, from what I remember, I am not sure what are your experiences with young deaf children and if u have ever seen or worked with children who have no concept of time or abstract thinking at the ages of 8 years old because they couldnt pick up on spoken language during their toddler years. Those are the children who grow up to adults with a 3rd or 4th grade reading and writing level and that has to STOP but it looks like it wont cuz the practice of denying many children sign language or a visual language during their language development years are still happening. Yes, I have seen it happen with children who have CIs. This is a preventable problem but too bad people still put oral or speech skills first over literacy skills.

 

[jillio]

all the studies and their validity aside, jillio, what about people like sr171soars who just said that the reason he is the way he is as successful with hearing with his CI now, is BECAUSE of the focus on the oral method? He admits fully he wouldn't be the way he is now if it hadn't been for going all-out orally, and had instead been forced to focus primarily on sign language. Doesn't that show that for some children, the oral-only approach is the BEST approach? And wouldn't it stand to show that when a child shows the preference for oral, its best to encourage that? Child-lead communication (like Lotte using voice as HER preference, even when given the opportunity to use both,) should be encouraged, instead of saying "oh NO NO NO - its not your NATURAL language - we can't have that - you must use sign instead, because we've decided that's best for you!!!" (I realize people have said that about sign too - but again - its not RIGHT, and two wrongs don't make a right, either.)

Once again, neecy, you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of where I stand and the issues of the discussion. sr71soars and Ihave already engaged in a dialogue about his particular situation--a reasonable and intelligent conversation, btw, and have reached our conclusions with both conceeding valid points to the other side. Nor does the Bi-Bi method or the TC method focus PRIMARILY on sign language; they are incusionary methods and use both languages. If you will check my posts in the discussions of educational methods for deaf children, you will discover that I am an advocate for the Bi-Bi method ideally, and the TC method as an alternative approach. The method that uses one language to the exclusion of all others is the ORAL METHOD. sr71soars began his educational career in a school for the deaf, and showed an affinity communication at, I believe, the fourth grade, and was then mainstreamed. That follows exactly the process I propose...that a child be given all the tools available to develop language in a nautural way, and then, if they show a natural talent and inclination for strictly oral communication, then allow them to follow that path. A few, such as sr71soars, will be able to to that with no negative consequences educationally or soically. But even by sr71soars own admission, those who can achieve his level of success orally are few and far between. I never said that oral successes don't exist. What I have said is that they are few and far between.

What I totally object to, and always will, as Ihave seen too many negative consequences educationally, and negative consequences socially, and disagree with from a moral and humanistic persective, is putting a child who is deaf into a strictly oral environment from the very beginning without taking the opportunity to give them all the tools necessary for them to show an affinity for one language or the other. If you do that, then you are focusing on language, spoken language tothe exclusion of sign, and you do not know if that particular child would find the visual manual language useful in
acquisition and comprehension. You cannot possibly know, because you have never provided the opportunity.
that is not child directed...that is adult directed. Nor is it based on what is best for the child, but simply on an ethnocentric preference for oral language by the adult making the decisions. This is the method that relegates sign language to inferior status, under the assumption that oral language is superior, and that deafness is something that must, at all costs, be corrected tothe point that the majority of society will not be able to detect it easily through language use. And that is what conveys the explicit message that to be deaf is to be inferior to the hearing. That is not only a psychologically damaging message, but it directly results in language deprivation and educational deprivation for untold numbers of deaf children. If you find that consequence acceptable, and the use of oral language so preferable that you don't mind the difficulties caused for these children, then I suppose you are the one that must live with that. I personally, do not find these consequences acceptable, and, from a moral standpoint, cannot endorse any practice that denies a child, or an adult, the opportunity to achieve the very most of what they are capable. I will never agree with it.

And yes, visual interpretation is natural for the deaf, and explicitly for the reasons I have posted above. By the time a child is implanted, cognitive pathways have already begun to develop, and preimplantation, that child has used their visual sense to interpret and understand the world around them. Even the greatest of the oral successes, while using oral language for communication purposes, use a great deal of visual input for comprehension of information. Few use no speech reading skills, and that is a natural consequence of visual interpretation, and one that had become an unconcious skill developed from a need to understand what is going on around them and to take in receptive messages. If this were not so, the profession of oral interpreting would not exist, the use of CART services woulde be unnecessary for the oral deaf student, and notetaking services would be obsolete for the deaf student.


As far as Lotte is concerned, have you visited cloggy's website? Read the posts where he states that she is using more and more oral language, but continues to frustrate both mother and father because they are often not able to understand her speech. Read where he says that he realizes that she continues to miss much of what is going on around here, particularly in the classroom. Read where he admits that she contiunues to suffer language delays. Read where he admits that they will sometimes be forced to resort tothe use of sign language when they are unable to get their message and efforts at communication across from a strictly oral language. His posts focus a lot o skills such as fine motor coordination, where a four year old child is able to copy letters, and naturally occurring developmental leaps that have nothing to do with deafness or CI implantation. These are milestones that EVERY child achieves, hearing or deaf, unless they have a pervasive developmental disorder. The issues at hand are those of language acquisition and educational deficits based on an inability to comprehend that which is presented. And obviously, from cloggy's own posts, on his own log, in reference to hisown daughter, Lotte is experiencing the signs and symptoms of these difficulties. My answer to that is, when a parent is forced to use sign to make a child understand in the face of failure of oral communication, that child is quite obviously missing out on many other things that are simply not noticed. Use sign when communicating with that child on a consistent basis so that communication flows naturally and these gaps do not occur. And simply because a child is able to use oral language expressively does not mean that they have the same skills or ability to use that oral language receptively. Cloggy's posts are full of examples.

If you have any further questions regarding any miisperceptions you may have about exactly what my position is, please feel free to make inquiries.

 

[jillio]

Jillo never said NO to using oral language. She is saying to use both when the children are young to ensure that no child gets deprived of a language. Since u are late deafened, from what I remember, I am not sure what are your experiences with young deaf children and if u have ever seen or worked with children who have no concept of time or abstract thinking at the ages of 8 years old because they couldnt pick up on spoken language during their toddler years. Those are the children who grow up to adults with a 3rd or 4th grade reading and writing level and that has to STOP but it looks like it wont cuz the practice of denying many children sign language or a visual language during their language development years are still happening. Yes, I have seen it happen with children who have CIs. This is a preventable problem but too bad people still put oral or speech skills first over literacy skills.

BINGO!

 

[Cloggy]

Yes, and these are replications of studies that also found that use of two HAs achieved the same results. But that still is not justification for using a strictly oral approach with a deaf child.

And I thought this way about "CI and background noise..."

Jillio... when did we start changing the subject.... or is it just jou changing it...

 

[jillio]

And I thought this way about "CI and background noise..."

Jillio... when did we start changing the subject.... or is it just jou changing it...

I didn't change it--that was in response to a question directed at me. I simply responded. Does that digression confuse you?

 

[Boult]

I would prefer to say that sign is a more natural language for deaf children to acquire and I would agree that visual cues are a strength to any deaf person and this should not be held back. These factors are factual and can be empirically observed.

I stop however at saying that sign is THE natural language for the deaf, because it is so blanket and non individualized. It is like saying that all black people have da natural rhythm.

Okay,I'll accept a more natural language. It makes the same point. And your comment regarding black people is a stereotype, and not something that has been studied empirically. But it made me laugh anyway!

I don't think that's what she meant... I'll let her explain to you again.

 

[jillio]

I don't think that's what she meant... I'll let her explain to you again.

I'm perfectly cpapble of comprehending the statement, Boult. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[shel90]

Once again, neecy, you are demonstrating a misunderstanding of where I stand and the issues of the discussion. sr71soars and Ihave already engaged in a dialogue about his particular situation--a reasonable and intelligent conversation, btw, and have reached our conclusions with both conceeding valid points to the other side. Nor does the Bi-Bi method or the TC method focus PRIMARILY on sign language; they are incusionary methods and use both languages. If you will check my posts in the discussions of educational methods for deaf children, you will discover that I am an advocate for the Bi-Bi method ideally, and the TC method as an alternative approach. The method that uses one language to the exclusion of all others is the ORAL METHOD. sr71soars began his educational career in a school for the deaf, and showed an affinity communication at, I believe, the fourth grade, and was then mainstreamed. That follows exactly the process I propose...that a child be given all the tools available to develop language in a nautural way, and then, if they show a natural talent and inclination for strictly oral communication, then allow them to follow that path. A few, such as sr71soars, will be able to to that with no negative consequences educationally or soically. But even by sr71soars own admission, those who can achieve his level of success orally are few and far between. I never said that oral successes don't exist. What I have said is that they are few and far between.

What I totally object to, and always will, as Ihave seen too many negative consequences educationally, and negative consequences socially, and disagree with from a moral and humanistic persective, is putting a child who is deaf into a strictly oral environment from the very beginning without taking the opportunity to give them all the tools necessary for them to show an affinity for one language or the other. If you do that, then you are focusing on language, spoken language tothe exclusion of sign, and you do not know if that particular child would find the visual manual language useful in
acquisition and comprehension. You cannot possibly know, because you have never provided the opportunity.
that is not child directed...that is adult directed. Nor is it based on what is best for the child, but simply on an ethnocentric preference for oral language by the adult making the decisions. This is the method that relegates sign language to inferior status, under the assumption that oral language is superior, and that deafness is something that must, at all costs, be corrected tothe point that the majority of society will not be able to detect it easily through language use. And that is what conveys the explicit message that to be deaf is to be inferior to the hearing. That is not only a psychologically damaging message, but it directly results in language deprivation and educational deprivation for untold numbers of deaf children. If you find that consequence acceptable, and the use of oral language so preferable that you don't mind the difficulties caused for these children, then I suppose you are the one that must live with that. I personally, do not find these consequences acceptable, and, from a moral standpoint, cannot endorse any practice that denies a child, or an adult, the opportunity to achieve the very most of what they are capable. I will never agree with it.

And yes, visual interpretation is natural for the deaf, and explicitly for the reasons I have posted above. By the time a child is implanted, cognitive pathways have already begun to develop, and preimplantation, that child has used their visual sense to interpret and understand the world around them. Even the greatest of the oral successes, while using oral language for communication purposes, use a great deal of visual input for comprehension of information. Few use no speech reading skills, and that is a natural consequence of visual interpretation, and one that had become an unconcious skill developed from a need to understand what is going on around them and to take in receptive messages. If this were not so, the profession of oral interpreting would not exist, the use of CART services woulde be unnecessary for the oral deaf student, and notetaking services would be obsolete for the deaf student.


As far as Lotte is concerned, have you visited cloggy's website? Read the posts where he states that she is using more and more oral language, but continues to frustrate both mother and father because they are often not able to understand her speech. Read where he says that he realizes that she continues to miss much of what is going on around here, particularly in the classroom. Read where he admits that she contiunues to suffer language delays. Read where he admits that they will sometimes be forced to resort tothe use of sign language when they are unable to get their message and efforts at communication across from a strictly oral language. His posts focus a lot o skills such as fine motor coordination, where a four year old child is able to copy letters, and naturally occurring developmental leaps that have nothing to do with deafness or CI implantation. These are milestones that EVERY child achieves, hearing or deaf, unless they have a pervasive developmental disorder. The issues at hand are those of language acquisition and educational deficits based on an inability to comprehend that which is presented. And obviously, from cloggy's own posts, on his own log, in reference to hisown daughter, Lotte is experiencing the signs and symptoms of these difficulties. My answer to that is, when a parent is forced to use sign to make a child understand in the face of failure of oral communication, that child is quite obviously missing out on many other things that are simply not noticed. Use sign when communicating with that child on a consistent basis so that communication flows naturally and these gaps do not occur. And simply because a child is able to use oral language expressively does not mean that they have the same skills or ability to use that oral language receptively. Cloggy's posts are full of examples.

If you have any further questions regarding any miisperceptions you may have about exactly what my position is, please feel free to make inquiries.

That is what I strongly believe in...it would go against my moral values and conscience to deprive any children of any language and the strictly oral only environment has shown to and still does deprive countless deaf children of full access to language. That goes against my belief which is why I am very much against it. It can work for some but I would NEVER EVER put a group of children at risk for language deprivation and delays so those few can succeed. That's where the BiBi approach comes in. If nobody seems to cant understand this, then I suggest u take some classes on linguistics, language acquisition and the impact of being delayed in language on the child's academic progress. Until then, many of you probably will never understand. I didnt understand before I took those classes. This has nothing to do with Deaf Culture or Deaf culture values...this is about valuing every deaf/hoh child's educational opportunities not just the lucky few.

 

[jillio]

That is what I strongly believe in...it would go against my moral values and conscience to deprive any children of any language and the strictly oral only environment has shown to and still does deprive countless deaf children of full access to language. That goes against my belief which is why I am very much against it. It can work for some but I would NEVER EVER put a group of children at risk for language deprivation and delays so those few can succeed. That's where the BiBi approach comes in. If nobody seems to cant understand this, then I suggest u take some classes on linguistics, language acquisition and the impact of being delayed in language on the child's academic progress. Until then, many of you probably will never understand. I didnt understand before I took those classes. This has nothing to do with Deaf Culture or Deaf culture values...this is about valuing every deaf/hoh child's educational opportunities not just the lucky few.

 

[sr171soars]

... sr71soars began his educational career in a school for the deaf, and showed an affinity communication at, I believe, the fourth grade, and was then mainstreamed. That follows exactly the process I propose...that a child be given all the tools available to develop language in a nautural way, and then, if they show a natural talent and inclination for strictly oral communication, then allow them to follow that path. A few, such as sr71soars, will be able to to that with no negative consequences educationally or soically. But even by sr71soars own admission, those who can achieve his level of success orally are few and far between. I never said that oral successes don't exist. What I have said is that they are few and far between.

A couple of clarifications...

Er...I started with third grade in terms of mainstreaming. They really didn't have grades in my deaf school. It was dependent on the child's ability to master the material. Even more interesting, it wasn't a true deaf school as such. *Sigh* it was so long ago I can't remember that much about it. I believe it was focused on oral methodologies but finger spelling was encouraged as a tool and I believe some sign was used. I never really picked up any sign but I did learn finger spelling.

Now to the nitty gritty of my clarification. I will agree that I was one of the few back then who had the ability to take the oral approach and run with it. This is terms of the era I grew up in. Meaning severe/profound with HA and CIs no where in sight. This is much different in todays world with CIs readily available to those as young as 1 year to those 80 years old. As I mentioned before if I had a CI at five yrs old, what a difference that would had made for me...no doubt about it! By this same token, think of the difference it makes for children today...a big improvement over HAs (assumes one qualifies for a CI) and a better chance to take advantage of a very good tool. Unfortunately, it is not so simple and not all kids can do that but I would submit a whole lot more do than in my time.

I can and others who had similar experiences can attest that there are significant differences between what a HA can provide and what a CI can provide especially in terms of clarity. Most hearing losses are uneven. Meaning some will hear higher pitches, some middle pitches, and some lower pitches better than other pitches. My real point is that deafness as a whole is very uneven for the most part for any given person. So, distortion can be a very real problem for those using a HA. A CI on the other hand can provide these pitches in a very consistent manner and thus provide an ideal learning environment to pick up speech.

 

[Boult]

I'm perfectly cpapble of comprehending the statement, Boult. Thanks, but no thanks.

Yeah right!

 

[Raykat]

It depends on the child and especially if the child goes that route.

Personally, I can relate with this even though I wasn't given the option of sign. I simply took to the oral route like a dolphin takes to water. I can only imagine what it would have been like for me if I had a CI (like my current one) to use back then instead of a HA. Having two CIs would have really knocked down the barn doors of life.

Totally agree with everything said here

 

[jillio]

A couple of clarifications...

Er...I started with third grade in terms of mainstreaming. They really didn't have grades in my deaf school. It was dependent on the child's ability to master the material. Even more interesting, it wasn't a true deaf school as such. *Sigh* it was so long ago I can't remember that much about it. I believe it was focused on oral methodologies but finger spelling was encouraged as a tool and I believe some sign was used. I never really picked up any sign but I did learn finger spelling.

Now to the nitty gritty of my clarification. I will agree that I was one of the few back then who had the ability to take the oral approach and run with it. This is terms of the era I grew up in. Meaning severe/profound with HA and CIs no where in sight. This is much different in todays world with CIs readily available to those as young as 1 year to those 80 years old. As I mentioned before if I had a CI at five yrs old, what a difference that would had made for me...no doubt about it! By this same token, think of the difference it makes for children today...a big improvement over HAs (assumes one qualifies for a CI) and a better chance to take advantage of a very good tool. Unfortunately, it is not so simple and not all kids can do that but I would submit a whole lot more do than in my time.

I can and others who had similar experiences can attest that there are significant differences between what a HA can provide and what a CI can provide especially in terms of clarity. Most hearing losses are uneven. Meaning some will hear higher pitches, some middle pitches, and some lower pitches better than other pitches. My real point is that deafness as a whole is very uneven for the most part for any given person. So, distortion can be a very real problem for those using a HA. A CI on the other hand can provide these pitches in a very consistent manner and thus provide an ideal learning environment to pick up speech.

I agree that there is a difference in what CI can provide,and what an HA can provide. However, becoming an oral success seems not so much to depend on level of hearing loss, or manner of amplification, but on discreet variables such as residual hearing (that is useful) and the individuals innate verbal abilities. There are those profoundly deaf individuals who have never been implanted that are able to achieve greater oral success than some profoundly deaf individauls implanted in childhood. Likewise, there are some moderate to severe deaf individuals that are unable to function on an oral basis at all. And some implanted CI users that audiologically, are recieving enough sound input to theoretically be capable of becoming oral, but find it impossible. And that is why I believe that a child should be exposed to ALL methods available from the very beginning. It is difficult, if not impossible to determine who will be able to function orally based on level of perceived sound alone. And distortion can be a problem sith CI as well, as there are some types of distortion that have a physiological basis, and are unrelated to the CI.