Okay, here's a start.
Marshark, M., Rhoten, K. and Fabich, M. (2007). Effects of cochlear implants on children's reading scores and academic achievement. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 12:3. pp.269-282. Oxford University Press.
"The results are easily summarized: In none of the 4 years evaluated has there been any significant difference between the implant group and the matched comparison group on any of the seven subtests. What trends have been observed are just as likely to favor the nonimplanted group as the implanted group. Further, a 2005 analysis including 17 children with implants and their matched peers indicated no significant correlations between achievements and either length of time woth an impalnt or age at implantation."
"In one analysis, Fabich examine the relations of cochlear implants and learning among 35 students with implants and 35 randomly selected students with hearing aids. No significant difference in learning was observed. In a second analysis, Fabich examined nine entrance and placement tests available for deaf students enrolled at RIT during the 2004-05 school year. Scores were available for 83 students identified as using cochlear implants, and they were compared to 71 randomly selected peers with hearing aids. No significant differences were observed on any of the tests."
"Implicit is both studies was the assumption that deaf students with implants should be performing at a higher level than peers without implants."
".....age of implantation was not associated with better reading scores (i.e. younger is normally better). Variables related to speech therapy, parent involvement, and private vs. public school were unrelated to reading skill."
"....the children that performed better had later hearing loss onsets and hence longer (pre-hearing loss) exposure to spoken language."
".....these results suggest that there are alternative routes to reading other than skilled phonological processing."
"Most children with cochlear implants function like hard-of-hearing children, at best, and hence are likely at a disadvantage with regard to phonological processing and phonemic awareness as well as incidental learning from auditory information."
"It is only when we understand the whole functioning of deaf children in social, language, and academic domains that we will be able to fully support their needs and take advantage of their strengths."
"The Spencer, et al. study also is noteworthy becasue it is the only one available in which deaf children with implants have been found to performing at a level fully equivilent to hearing age-mates in academic performance, and the students had utilized both sign and speech during the school years."
"Indeed, it appears a tacit assumption in the field--and certainly one taken home by many parents of deaf children--that enhanced language skills typical of most deaf children who receive cochlear implants will allow then to function at the level of hearing peers in regualr school classtooms. Given the findings thus far, however, one should not assume that academic differences between deaf children and their hearing peers will disappear if the former receive cochlear implants."
".....children with implants do not have hearing, speech, or language skills that are equivilent to those of hearing peers, and thus, are likely to miss some amount of inforamtion in the classroom. A similar argument would apply to informal learning situaiton (both explicit and incidental) prior to the school years as well as during them. It may be that the advantage seen in studies by Toblin, Spencer, and their colleagues for children who use sign language and speech in school with support from sign language interpreters is a consequence of those children having greater access to classroom discourse with 2 modes of communication rather than one."
"Clearly, the purpose of cochlear implantation is to improve hearing, and the expectation is that speech and language will not be far behind. Although there still has not been any demonstration that visual forms of communication will impede development of oral-aural forms of communication among children with implants, there nonetheless is is a strong propensity in the field for emphasizing auditory information over potential sources of visual information for such children."
There is an example of the research that supports the claims that people such as shel and I make regarding CI and oral environments. For instance, support for the claim that CI users exposed to sign and speech perform more closely related to hearing peers than do oral CI students. That sign does not impede the development of oral language skills in CI children. That CI children do not outperform in reading tests. That there is no correlation between academic achievement and length of time with implant. Etc, etc,etc. I'll give you time to read and syntesize this information, and then will continue with other supporting evidence.
I haven't counted how many people you are in discussion here, but this would just be the beginning to start laying the groundwork in how future training can be done. Yes, granted, this will probably take a few years and many consultations with many teachers of the deaf in all areas of it. So be it. This, Jackie, is what I meant. Oh, by the way, I think you can do it!
