Cochlear decison

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



no, we are using language she already knows to help her build her auditory memory. She may have been able to understand those words in isolation but through that activity she had to listen for two critical elements within a longer phrase, which is much more difficult than picking out a single word from a closed set of, say, 6. We would use language that she already knew, receptively as well as expressively, to grow her auditory skills.

You still don't get it. Oh, well.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

do you actually live an av lifestyle?

Both of my hearing children are involved in speech therapy, so, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I've seen the eye rolls when I have them repeat something until they get it right.

Also, try opening your eyes and read the experiences of Deaf adults that are posted in any number of threads here. Are their experiences somehow "wrong"? Did their parents do a poor job raising them and you'd never make those kinds of mistakes with your own child?

"see the zebra? Wow, he is much bigger than i thought! Look at his mane. The hair looks like bristles. He has lots of black and white stripes. Oooh, he just swished that fly away with his tail. What is he eating? Hay. That's right. Zebras eat hay. Do you think they live where it is hot or cold?...."

that's it, talk, not drill. That is why people do av rather than old school, traditional speech. It is about language, not drills.

Oh, please, it's more involved than that, and you know it. If it was simple as just talking your child's ear off then speech therapists would be out of work.

It's more like:

"See the zebra?"
"Yeth! I thee the zebwa!"
"Zee-BRA."
"Zee-BWA."
"Try feeling it in the back of your throat, like a dog growling: R... R..."
"Ehr... ehr..."
"That's good honey! Now say 'zee-BRA'."
"Ze-behr-a."
"Very good! What's the zebra eating?"
"He's eating gwass!"
"No-"
"I mean g-ehr-wass."
"That's close. You're a good talker!"

I've been there. I know what it's like.

just by you saying that you "have them repeat it until they get it right" shows me that you are not using the approach i am talking about. You are talking about drills. That is very different.

 

[Mountain Man]

i am saying that the average child implanted at age one would have weekly av sessions until they reach age appropriate levels at age three. They would develop age appropriate articulation developmentally like a hearing child would, simply through listening.

Oh, so now we've gone from "no speech therapy" to weekly sessions until the age of three (or five... which is it?), at which point, what, the child is just cut loose and no more therapy of any kind? From that point on they will function like a typical hearing child with no language delays whatsoever?

Are you certain it works like that?

 

[Mountain Man]

just by you saying that you "have them repeat it until they get it right" shows me that you are not using the approach i am talking about. You are talking about drills. That is very different.

Oh, I get it. Everybody's experience except yours is "wrong". :roll:

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



just by you saying that you "have them repeat it until they get it right" shows me that you are not using the approach i am talking about. You are talking about drills. That is very different.

And drills are directive teaching experiences, not passive learning experiences.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



yes, the average child will need language immersion and short term therapy. Most kids implanted young are age appropriate by 5, usually by 3. Parents attend weekly av sessions to learn the skills to immerse their child in language. Most children do not require long term, dozens of years, of therapy and very few require "drills" and artic therapy.

So, you're saying, in other words, that most kids implanted young are so successful that they require no therapy in speech articulation after age of 5? They can speak and hear that well?

yes, that is what i'm saying.

 

[jillio]

I've got a question. If it is not mandatory for a child using hearing aids to be in an AV environment to learn to use the hearing aid to the greatest benefit, why is it mandatory for a child using a CI to be in an AV environment? Both are devices intended to increase auditory perception, and learning to use both requires the same processes cognitively from the child.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



yes, that is what i'm saying.

Again, can you support what you say with evidence? Not anecdotal?

 

[Mountain Man]

no, we are using language she already knows to help her build her auditory memory. She may have been able to understand those words in isolation but through that activity she had to listen for two critical elements within a longer phrase, which is much more difficult than picking out a single word from a closed set of, say, 6. We would use language that she already knew, receptively as well as expressively, to grow her auditory skills.

Why, that almost sounds like a drill. I thought you didn't do those.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

just by you saying that you "have them repeat it until they get it right" shows me that you are not using the approach i am talking about. You are talking about drills. That is very different.

Oh, I get it. Everybody's experience except yours is "wrong". :roll:

you can do it your way, and i'll do it mine. I would never "correct" my child like that. Plus, it is much more effective to simply use audition to teach an auditory language. No need for tactile clues. They hear it.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

no, we are using language she already knows to help her build her auditory memory. She may have been able to understand those words in isolation but through that activity she had to listen for two critical elements within a longer phrase, which is much more difficult than picking out a single word from a closed set of, say, 6. We would use language that she already knew, receptively as well as expressively, to grow her auditory skills.

Why, that almost sounds like a drill. I thought you didn't do those.

not at all. We are using a fun experience (reading a book) to work on a skill set. No repeation, no drills, just a trained therapist, a book and some paper and scissors.

 

[Mountain Man]

I would never "correct" my child like that.

That's because your child is not my child.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



you can do it your way, and i'll do it mine. I would never "correct" my child like that. Plus, it is much more effective to simply use audition to teach an auditory language. No need for tactile clues. They hear it.

What? Where are you getting the information from which you draw these conclusion?

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

I've got a question. If it is not mandatory for a child using hearing aids to be in an AV environment to learn to use the hearing aid to the greatest benefit, why is it mandatory for a child using a CI to be in an AV environment? Both are devices intended to increase auditory perception, and learning to use both requires the same processes cognitively from the child.

the research does show that kids in a spoken language environment do end up with better spoken language and speech than those in a tc class. I know of no research that compares av and bi-bi.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



not at all. We are using a fun experience (reading a book) to work on a skill set. No repeation, no drills, just a trained therapist, a book and some paper and scissors.

Fun experiences are supposed to be for pure fun. Not directed teaching experiences. A child learns from play by passive means. When you begin to direct it, you alter the child's ability to gain important information from their expeirence, and turn everything in something with an objective that must be met. This has very negative consequences.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



the research does show that kids in a spoken language environment do end up with better spoken language and speech than those in a tc class. I know of no research that compares av and bi-bi.

Which research is that?

So, the goal is speech. The goal is articulation. The goal is mimicry.

 

[Mountain Man]

not at all. We are using a fun experience (reading a book) to work on a skill set. No repeation, no drills, just a trained therapist, a book and some paper and scissors.

It's a drill in the sense that it's a repetitious activity that is performed until the child gets it "right" or until the therapist is satisfied, at which point they move on to the next activity.

But regardless, it's all speech therapy, and it's very real necessity for children with cochlear implants.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



you can do it your way, and i'll do it mine. I would never "correct" my child like that. Plus, it is much more effective to simply use audition to teach an auditory language. No need for tactile clues. They hear it.

What? Where are you getting the information from which you draw these conclusion?

speech is an acoustic event. All the information to discriminate all of spoken language is contained within the sounds of the language. The information is not available 100% through visual means, nor through tactile input. Therefore, the easiest and most complete way to learn an auditory language would be through audition.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



the research does show that kids in a spoken language environment do end up with better spoken language and speech than those in a tc class. I know of no research that compares av and bi-bi.

Which research is that?

So, the goal is speech. The goal is articulation. The goal is mimicry.

no, that is why i said spoken language as well.

 

[Banjo]

Which research is that?

So, the goal is speech. The goal is articulation. The goal is mimicry.

It's interesting how people keep saying, "better spoken language and speech", yet they don't say "better spoken and written language". Big difference right there. I have met a good number of people who were extensively trained to speak via oral therapy. However, it was pretty obvious that they weren't extensively trained to write.