Cochlear implant mends lives

[shel90]

That reminds me. I was just reading the abstract of a study on Pubmed today that found that movements toward oral language after the CI tended to be child led.



Parents' Views on Changing Communication After Coc...[J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2007] - PubMed Result

The problem with is that the oral view here in the US is that by introducing signing to the children, they would never develop oral skills...we already saw one oral teacher make a statement like that in another thread. So if these families are using sign language with their children and their children started using more spoken language then that is proof that sign language doesnt interfer with the children's abilities to develop oral skills. :roll:

I dont know how the oral view is in other countries...but here in the US..it is like "Let's introduce oral language to the deaf children first and see if they succeed with it or not. If not, then switch them to signed language." To me that is reckless because that will put many deaf children at risk for being deprived of language if they were unable to pick up on it. I dont believe in that approach at all because I think that is wrong to play around with children's language development like that and as a result, the children suffer academically later. Those who pick up oral language are the ones that lucked out like me for example. I dont think it matter if I have a CI or not. I think it is the way our brains process the auditory information. I am sure the CI increases the chances but that risk is still there.

 

[jag]

If you will go back and check extensive postings, I think you will find several members who agree that cloggy's remarks and attitudes are audist in nature.

Nope, I've read most of his postings under this topic. But then the 'interpetation' is based on our own observations. We are different people. I am not bothered by a person who likes to speak with the voice and wants to give that to thier child. And unlike you, I am deaf/hoh and have been for quite some time. You only have your 'interpetation' by observation of your child. Now that young man could come on here and speak for himself regarding this subject and have more validity then yourself since HE has had the personal expericence. Right?

 

[R2D2]

The fact that parents answered the questionaires means that it was the parent's perspective that communication change was child-led. Do you see the problems with validity here?

The peer reviewers of the journal in which it was accepted for publication don't appear to have a problem with validity on those grounds. I've seen plenty of other studies both concerning sign and speech in which the parents of young children answered the questions - it seems a pretty standard and acceptable methodology from what I can see.

Do you see any practical difficulty in asking that question of the children by themselves? They would be too young to understand what the interviewer was getting at plus there would be difficulty in recollection on their parts due to age and the fact that the language would have been developed over a long period of time. In other words, the switch in direction may have been made unconsciously on their parts.

 

[R2D2]

The problem with is that the oral view here in the US is that by introducing signing to the children, they would never develop oral skills...we already saw one oral teacher make a statement like that in another thread. So if these families are using sign language with their children and their children started using more spoken language then that is proof that sign language doesnt interfer with the children's abilities to develop oral skills. :roll:

I am aware that there are those who believe that sign interferes with the development of oral speech but I don't think the researchers in the study are saying that. In fact, one of them did a study back in year 2000 I think in which she found that starting with sign makes no difference to the oral outcome after a CI at say age 2 or 3. The abstract seems to suggest that many of the children started off signing.

I'd be interested to read the whole paper. It's difficult to formulate an opinion based on just an abstract.

 

[shel90]

Nope, I've read most of his postings under this topic. But then the 'interpetation' is based on our own observations. We are different people. I am not bothered by a person who likes to speak with the voice and wants to give that to thier child. And unlike you, I am deaf/hoh and have been for quite some time. You only have your 'interpetation' by observation of your child. Now that young man could come on here and speak for himself regarding this subject and have more validity then yourself since HE has had the personal expericence. Right?

Yea, would be nice but some people are not interested in forums. I try to encourage the parents who have expressed to me how much they regret not exposing their children to sign language from the start to join here but so far, they havent joined. They said they will..probably too busy with their lives or they are not into these kinds of things. I got my brother to join here so he can share his views but he seemed to have stopped after a few posts. Depends on who is really interested in forums like these or not.

Wait and see what Jillo says if her son wants to come in here and share his views or not.

 

[shel90]

I am aware that there are those who believe that sign interferes with the development of oral speech but I don't think the researchers in the study are saying that. In fact, one of them did a study back in year 2000 I think in which she found that starting with sign makes no difference to the oral outcome after a CI at say age 2 or 3. The abstract seems to suggest that many of the children started off signing.

I'd be interested to read the whole paper. It's difficult to formulate an opinion based on just an abstract.

Right and it is not just with children who have CIs..it is with children who dont have CIs or even HAs...my deaf coworkers and some of my deaf students without CIs are living proof of that cuz they have been in signing environments in the educational setting all their lives. My deaf coworkers told me once they understood the concpet of English as a spoken language, they were the ones who showed an interest in taking speech classes and with that motivation, they developed their oral skills while in school. They used signing for learning new concepts or classroom discussions but speech with the hearing world. I really think that is having the best of both. I didnt have that so I envy them. Yes, I have encountered deaf adults saying they wished they learned speech skills as kids but they can still take speech classes now and if they really wanted it badly enough, they could learn. Maybe wont have perfect speech but at least have some as opposed to nothing. My brother is not interested in learning speech skills but I am sure he can if he really wanted to.

 

[Cloggy]

The fact that parents answered the questionaires means that it was the parent's perspective that communication change was child-led. Do you see the problems with validity here?

Parent asks a question using sign... child answers without sigh, speech only....

Yeh.... those parents must be completely wrong....

 

[Cloggy]

If you will go back and check extensive postings, I think you will find several members who agree that cloggy's remarks and attitudes are audist in nature.

.......... or does he just disagree with you..??? or even worse... he might agree with you, but is asking to look in the other direction as well.... :Ohno:

 

[jag]

\
Wait and see what Jillo says if her son wants to come in here and share his views or not.

Actually shel the point of my post wasn't so much that her son come an join the discussion, but that she continually discounts the observations of parents who's children with CI's are successful based on the fact that it's just their opinion, that even if the child is a young adult now and has expressed happiness with their way of life and it doesn't bother them to not be part of deaf culture, well she tends to make it sound like the child is not telling the parent the truth and is really not happy at all, and the fact that those are just observations and parents tend to see what they want those postings by parents aren't valid.

I do admire you for your openmindedness. Perhaps you should apply for a grant to gather information dealing with the use of sign language and oral language in children who get CI's. (or are hoh with HA's) the goal of the collection would be to develope a simple informational brochure to encourage the use of both until the child picks one which he feels comforatable with. The CI does give most wearers much more then a HA can. But there are always exceptions to the rule. Basically something needs to be developed in the middle, between pure ASL and spoken language with no visual input.

I know of down syndrome groups that have developed informational packets for parents who've been told their baby will have down syndrome these are left with the drs and clinics to give out to parents to be. Something similar could be developed for parents of deaf children with or without CI's. I don't know how people go about getting grants for this type of thing but it might be rewarding for you if you feel that strongly about educating parents about using all options from the beginning. To add: using all options from the beginning to avoid the pitfalls that others have already encountered. Have a good day. I've off to bed soon.

 

[jillio]

Nope, I've read most of his postings under this topic. But then the 'interpetation' is based on our own observations. We are different people. I am not bothered by a person who likes to speak with the voice and wants to give that to thier child. And unlike you, I am deaf/hoh and have been for quite some time. You only have your 'interpetation' by observation of your child. Now that young man could come on here and speak for himself regarding this subject and have more validity then yourself since HE has had the personal expericence. Right?

A) Read the postings of others, not cloggy.

B) I don't have a problem with someone who wants to provide services that will allow their child to develop oral skills, either. My problem is with parents who insist that oral skills are the ONLY skill a deaf child needs and treaat manual language as a crutch.

C) And you are incorrect. I have contact on a dialy basis with many deaf/Deaf individuals, including CI users. If you will go back and read some of my pposts, you will know that I am employed in the disability services dept. of a large state university, and that I also provide counseling services to the deaf.

D) How is it that you know that my son hasn't posted on here? You are assuming quite a bit, and your assumptions are in error.

 

[jillio]

The peer reviewers of the journal in which it was accepted for publication don't appear to have a problem with validity on those grounds. I've seen plenty of other studies both concerning sign and speech in which the parents of young children answered the questions - it seems a pretty standard and acceptable methodology from what I can see.

Do you see any practical difficulty in asking that question of the children by themselves? They would be too young to understand what the interviewer was getting at plus there would be difficulty in recollection on their parts due to age and the fact that the language would have been developed over a long period of time. In other words, the switch in direction may have been made unconsciously on their parts.

Did not say that it wasn't valid, I said problems with the validity. That means that this particular study, while valid for that particular population in that particular circumstance, is extremely limited. Peer reviewed journals publish studies that have limitation all the time. In fact, all studies have some form of limitation and variables that were perhaps not accounted for. The limitations must be published in the conclusions section of the paper. Survey is an acceptable instrument, but it has a number of problems built into it, and any researcher will recognize those problems. That doesn't preclude using it.

 

[jillio]

Parent asks a question using sign... child answers without sigh, speech only....

Yeh.... those parents must be completely wrong....

Are you taking drugs? Your reply has nothing to do with thepoint I was making.

 

[jillio]

.......... or does he just disagree with you..??? or even worse... he might agree with you, but is asking to look in the other direction as well.... :Ohno:

Yep, you must be on drugs!

 

[neecy]

A) Read the postings of others, not cloggy.

B) I don't have a problem with someone who wants to provide services that will allow their child to develop oral skills, either. My problem is with parents who insist that oral skills are the ONLY skill a deaf child needs and treaat manual language as a crutch.

Can you point out exactly WHOM here has said that oral skills are the ONLY skills needed, and that they treat manual language as a crutch? Every single parent of a CI implanted child on this forum has admitted that sign language is an integral part of the communication toolbox. Where do you come up with these things???

 

[jillio]

Can you point out exactly WHOM here has said that oral skills are the ONLY skills needed, and that they treat manual language as a crutch? Every single parent of a CI implanted child on this forum has admitted that sign language is an integral part of the communication toolbox. Where do you come up with these things???

Cloggy--We don't use sign because it is not necessary any more. My daughter is hearing.

Rick48--My daughter has not needed sign, she has done well orally.

jackie--If my children needed sign, I would use it. But they don't.You can tell if a child is an oral failure by the time they are five. Then you can start using sign, if they can't be oral.

 

[neecy]

Cloggy--We don't use sign because it is not necessary any more. My daughter is hearing.

Rick48--My daughter has not needed sign, she has done well orally.

jackie--If my children needed sign, I would use it. But they don't.You can tell if a child is an oral failure by the time they are five. Then you can start using sign, if they can't be oral.

Cloggy USED sign - his daughter is the one who stopped using it. He has never once said that the oral-only approach is all he used. I have seen Rick mention using sign but again - ITS NOT BEEN NEEDED - that's not to say its the ONLY method - its simply the one of preference at the moment.

As to Jackie - I must have missed that - but again - if it was needed it would be used. If something isn't needed why is it necessary to use at that moment? All the parents here are completely open to using sign language - the children have simply not shown that they NEED it now. Is that such a bad thing? Its there to fall back on if it ever *is* needed.

 

[jillio]

Cloggy USED sign - his daughter is the one who stopped using it. He has never once said that the oral-only approach is all he used. I have seen Rick mention using sign but again - ITS NOT BEEN NEEDED - that's not to say its the ONLY method - its simply the one of preference at the moment.

As to Jackie - I must have missed that - but again - if it was needed it would be used. If something isn't needed why is it necessary to use at that moment? All the parents here are completely open to using sign language - the children have simply not shown that they NEED it now. Is that such a bad thing? Its there to fall back on if it ever *is* needed.

He is using the oral only approach now. Get your facts straight. Rick said that his daughter started learning sign after she started college and made some deaf friends. You need to read these posts a little more thoroughly before you jump into the conversation and start criticizing me.

 

[neecy]

Cloggy uses the oral only approach NOW!! Because LOTTE PREFERS IT!! He HAS used sign, and still does - I've even seen pictures of his daughter and her mom signing - but if LOTTE herself prefers to speak - is that bad????

Never mind..its like banging my head against a brick wall..it serves no purpose and just gives me a headache. I guess you'll never understand.

 

[R2D2]

Did not say that it wasn't valid, I said problems with the validity. That means that this particular study, while valid for that particular population in that particular circumstance, is extremely limited. Peer reviewed journals publish studies that have limitation all the time. In fact, all studies have some form of limitation and variables that were perhaps not accounted for. The limitations must be published in the conclusions section of the paper. Survey is an acceptable instrument, but it has a number of problems built into it, and any researcher will recognize those problems. That doesn't preclude using it.

I don't have a problem with what you've said in terms of the natural limitations of the study, which as you say, applies to many studies of that nature. It doesn't mean that the conclusions are not useful though, especially considering that this particular study contains a good sample size.

I brought it up as a matter of interest because the discussion on this thread touched upon the observation that Lotte, Cloggy's daughter had made a choice in her communication direction. It seems that in those cases the shift happens naturally over a process of time rather than people suddenly stopping sign because they've made a decision that their child is oral right now. However, I acknowledge that there are parents and professionals out there who are more forceful in that way.

I'd have to read the paper all the way through but it sounds like many of the parents were signing with their kids prior to the CI, which implies that they view it somewhat positively as a means of communicating with their children.

 

[shel90]

Cloggy--We don't use sign because it is not necessary any more. My daughter is hearing.

Rick48--My daughter has not needed sign, she has done well orally.

jackie--If my children needed sign, I would use it. But they don't.You can tell if a child is an oral failure by the time they are five. Then you can start using sign, if they can't be oral.

Have to remember we have to be careful about interpreting the words that Cloggy uses cuz when he says his daughter is hearing, I think he is referring to the dB level not the comprehension level so that term "hearing" can mean a lot of things. When we use it, we think in terms of being able to acquire language through hearing but I think Cloggy is talking in terms of the dB level being the same as a hearing person. Or he could be saying my daughter is hearing as in "can hear things" not as a "hearing person" herself. Know what I mean.

I think that is where the misunderstandings happened...again, if I am wrong, pls correct me. I am trying to see from Cloggy's point of view cuz he did repeat himself that they used sign language with his daughter but she responded using spoken language so if his daughter is comfortable using it and can understand everything being said around her then that's great. I just wish him and other parents understand that what worked for their children doesnt work for other children with CIs so that's where I am trying to bring up awareness about using both sign language and spoken language during the early years. Instead I get yelled at for getting a life, for projecting my childhood problems onto their children, my parents mistakes on them and being a deaf militant...come on! That's not what I am doing. It is all about awareness of the dark side of deaf education and how many children suffer from this approach.

I agree with u about Jackie's statement about not introducing signs until it is apparent the child is not picking up on spoken language by the age of 3 or 5 and then switching. Now, that's an approach I strongly object to!