Teacherofthedeaf
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 63
I'm sorry, do you have data that supports what you are saying, or are you just guessing?
Has anyone read this new study?
- Thread starter Teacherofthedeaf
- Start date
- Status
I have a suggestion. Take a French class with earplugs on. THAT is exactly what it's like for an oral deaf kid to learn spoken language. Also, an oral deaf approach is pretty much the equalivant of having a kid who is gifted in English but slow in math, by exclusively focusing on their defiect in math, and ignoring their strengh in English. By exclusively focusing ONLY on speech/ HOH skills, you're doing just that with dhh kids. And no, I'm not guessing......I actually experienced it. So did my friend Sidney (who I convinced to transfer to TSD) So did the kids with my syndrome who now that they weren't cute little kids anymore , were struggling in upper elementary, middle and high school.....Heck, Sidney said that a lady at Hands and Voices told her and her mom, that what Sidney was going through was VERY common.....So no I'm not guessing.
I read the study and I did not read anything about them picking up sign later. It just said that the children who were exposed to the least amount of sign through elementary school did the best in word rec scores and 70% of the kids that were exposed to the least signing approached or were in the normal range for their age, but only 39% of those that signed the most were there.
Last edited:
Yes, I know. And the theory behind it has been discredited.
So do you have a CI? And if you do how long ago were you implanted? The medical field is one of constant changes, as they do things they learn how to do it better, the equipment (CI's) get better and with the constant studies going on they learn what works and what doesn't and what works the best. One thing to remember is children who are implanted prior to age three and the earlier the better have already missed some basic auditory cues (in utero) that kids who can hear receive and if you want them to get the most benefit from their CI (most parents probably want this) they need to receive all the auditory processing they can get to catch up and if some or a good part of what they are told comes from sign language they are going to miss a lot of verbal cues along the way and if you never hear it you won't know what it is when you do! Since 90% of all deaf kids are born to hearing parents the child's development is or will be slowed by the fact that both child and parent will have to learn sign together and more time will be lost in getting these kids hearing and my guess is that is what the parents of these implanted kids want is a child that can get along in the hearing world because that is where they will spend most of their time. If the child decides they want to learn sign too and this study holds up to further review than the parents will have to lay out the possible consequences if they use sign too early.
Teacherofthedeaf
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 63
How so? You have seen data that shows that auditory brain development is not needed for spoken language acquisition?
By whom?
I did a search to pull up studies discrediting Auditory Verbal Therapy and only found yours which I just pulled up. This was from three years ago on the subject but it speaks volumes of your feelings on the subject. To save you the time of pulling it up I will reprint the quote here so you can re read it.
Your 2014 post, ↑
[Auditory verbal therapy is EVIL. I'm sorry but the mentality behind it is just .......beyond cruel. It doesn't allow the child to speechread.....It's also based on a very outdated theory, that children learn speech by sound exclusively. It's actually not true. Kids learn spoken language by a combonation of speech AND seeing/speechreading. It is also too intense for most if not all families. Imagine raising a toddler/kid and having to constantly make every single moment into a Spoken Language Learning Session. Right here, we have a mom who raised her HOH daughter with AVT. She said that the AV therapist suggested turning a visit to a grocery store into a Formal Language Learning Session, by naming every single item of groceries, rather then just normal mother-child interaction. AVT also makes a mockery of deaf children b/c it implies that we cannot develop spoken language without being in an eternal speech therapy session. Why not just normal speech therapy?]
Last edited:
DeafDucky
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
- Messages
- 5,846
- Reaction score
- 1,073
Ha! I think the biggest reason why I took 4 years of Latin in High School was because it would have been a challenge with Spanish or French...and at least one if not both of them- utilized headphones to listen to tapes or whatever. Latin was easier as it was closest to English in pronunciation at least (grammar of course is different). I don't remember if I was "steered" to that or I decided on my own. Did take 2 years of Spanish in college though.
Yes my parents probably wanted me to "get along with the hearing world" so went with the "oral" approach (the attitude at PSD didn't help much I suspect)...but- some 45+ years later...I feel isolated in a sea of hearing people. No it's not the same for everyone to be sure. But can tell you as a "successful oral deaf" I still felt alone and isolated. I have very few close friends who happen to be hearing- pretty much 1 in fact. I have more close friends in the Deaf world and tend to interact a little more there with sign.
The above is just one person's personal opinion. I don't need a study to tell me what works and what doesn't. A person's life is more than sitting in a controlled environment and focusing a ton on speech and hearing.
I'm out.
You're talking from a generation that is pre CI and even with a CI your success with it would more than likely be lower than a one or two year old child receiving one today who is pre aural. The kids this study is using are probably around the age of 12 today. It's a tough choice for some parents to make, but study after study has shown the earlier the implant is done the better the results. Another study
I just came across which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which had results that were similar to what the op's study showed.
[188 children 6 months to 5 years were followed for 3 years after receiving their cochlear implants. Researchers than analyzed their language development and compared it to 97 children without hearing loss.
Children who received their implants prior to they turned 18 months, showed speaking ability that stayed close to that of their hearing counterparts. Children who received their implants after they turned 3, however, exhibited some gaps when compared to same age children without hearing loss.]
No one is saying that these kids can't eventually turn to ASL. All they are saying is that their results on understanding language will be better with the more they hear and the less sign language they use. The end result is the parents who chose to get CI for their children want them to be part of the hearing world and not isolated from a large portion of it( those who don't know sign language) and they want to know what is the best way to get the greatest benefit for their child.
AmputeeOT
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 68
I wouldn't say I have 50 (I was being more general) , but I still stand by my statement about correlation vs causation.
It's unfortunate that as a Teacher of the Deaf you've never seen a study that compared signers to non-signers. Shouldn't your teaching methods be based on methodology that has been proven by research to be effective? finding these studies on pubmed is *trivial*.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=sign+language+deaf+speech+children <-here is a good place to start.
http://www3.gallaudet.edu/Documents...al_Webcast_May_17_2016-for_upload-5-24-16.pdf <--more references supporting the use of ASL, not necessarily primary research, however.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046778 <- study comparing signers to non-signers, found some differences in "The children in Group 1 (bilingual) had better verbal and manual expression whereas those in Group 2 (spoken) achieved better results in terms of speech intelligibility, auditory reception and grammatical closure" which is interesting because the new study said the same thing about intelligibility so maybe there is something there, but these few studies are still limited in scope.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/12/18/peds.2015-1974 <--meta-analysis that came to no strong conclusions either way.
I think, given the research I have read, that I can come to these conclusions:
1. Signing does not have a negative effect on spoken language, and
1a. Therefore there is no reason to prohibit children/parents from learning it if they want.
2. Signing doesn't necessarily have a positive effect on spoken language acquisition either.
2b. This is probably due to most parents of children not being fluent in ASL, but that's just my guess.
3. For some children who are unable to fluently acquire spoken language despite intervention(s), they can still likely acquire a fluent signed and/or written language.
3b. Therefore prohibiting sign language will be a detriment to those children unable to acquire spoken language.
This newly published study adds to the body of scientific knowledge about Deaf education but is in no way definitive and should not be treated as such.
P.S. I am a published scientific author. Not in Deaf studied but in biomechanics, however the ability to analyze research is based on principals of science - which is irrespective of the field.
Your speaking from the vantage point of someone who is old enough that you could not of received a CI before you were the age of three and the study in question is on that group and the positive and negative impact on them regarding whether to use or not use sign language in their formative years in correlation to how well they achieve language in relation to their hearing pear group. Nothing is said about anyone else using or not using sign language and the positive or negative effects it has on those groups. This study and others have shown that children implanted before the age of three and the earlier the better do much better than someone who is implanted after the age of three and beyond. This one has gone one step further and looked into how well the children do on acquiring language based on how much or how little sign they use. Yes, the numbers in the study are small, but those implanted at such a young age are not a big group and the NIH study you listed (19046778) used only 18 children in that study and those children ranged in age from 15 months to 5 years when they received their implant and the results were similar to this study. The most recent numbers I have been able to come up with say that worldwide 188,000 are implanted and statistics from the NIH puts the number of adults in the US with a CI at around 41,000 and those under the age of 18, around 26,000 and growing. It doesn't break it down by age, so it's numbers are roughly at 1,450 per age group with more in the younger ages being implanted than those who are older. Also using NIH statistics they put the number of babies in the US who are born profoundly deaf at around 1,600 per year in the US. The NCBI states"in the developed world 80% of children born profoundly deaf receive CI at an early age." So if you use the 1,600 US total and the 80% number that means that each year 1280 babies are receiving CI each year in the US. For those not getting an implant, sign language is basically essential for someone born profoundly deaf and I doubt it's ever going to go away. As to wether it may or may not have an effect on spoken language development in the deaf? Unfortunately coming up with studies related to deaf children using sign and their language development seems to be much less studied than it does on hearing babies using sign. Those studies you listed also have little information on the subject. The studies I have found and read only talk about late development in hearing babies using sign language to communicate.
- NIH-supported scientists showed that profoundly deaf children who receive a cochlear implant at a young age develop language skills at a rate comparable to children with normal hearing.
- Although the benefits of the cochlear implant can vary among individual users, improvements in speech processors and other related technologies allow children with cochlear implants to succeed in mainstream classrooms.
- NIH-supported scientists found that the benefits of the cochlear implant far outweigh its costs in children. A cochlear implant costs approximately $60,000 (including the surgery, adjustments, and training). In comparison, the services, special education, and adaptation related to a child that is deaf before age three costs more than $1 million.
Last edited:
AlleyCat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2005
- Messages
- 18,779
- Reaction score
- 2,276
I'm a little offended at what is being said here because these are studies, and not actual success/failure conversations such as on here.
At the risk of being criticized here because we do not normally comment on English here, seb, your first sentence "your speaking" should be "you're speaking". And "their hearing pear group" should be "their hearing peer group".
Keep that in mind before anyone criticizes how people do with or without CIs. I don't have one, yet I do just fine, obviously.
At the risk of being criticized here because we do not normally comment on English here, seb, your first sentence "your speaking" should be "you're speaking". And "their hearing pear group" should be "their hearing peer group".
Keep that in mind before anyone criticizes how people do with or without CIs. I don't have one, yet I do just fine, obviously.
There seems to be a search for a non-existent bottom line.
Now what? Separate the kids with CI's from those without and give them different curriculum?
I am getting tired of this. Language is a life-long acquisition and all my hearing friends know they are encouraged to stop and correct me when I mispronounce a word. I thank them, they feel good, and life goes inexorably on.
Ah well. Once again, I am outta here.
Now what? Separate the kids with CI's from those without and give them different curriculum?
I am getting tired of this. Language is a life-long acquisition and all my hearing friends know they are encouraged to stop and correct me when I mispronounce a word. I thank them, they feel good, and life goes inexorably on.
Ah well. Once again, I am outta here.
Thank you
Thank you for the spell check, perhaps I will send further post to you via PM so you can correct them before I post them. Thanks again!
Obviously 80% of parents having children who are being born deaf do and are choosing to have their children receive CI in order to give them the best chance in life. As to making you " a person" I would bet that if the people who were born deaf were born with the ability to hear, they would be totally different people and live totally different lives. However, in the past you were dealt a deck of cards and you had to play the cards you got. Today, you get a chance to be re dealt some of your hand.
AlleyCat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2005
- Messages
- 18,779
- Reaction score
- 2,276
I don't want to be re-dealt the cards I got. I obviously get along just fine as is. I can speak, I can spell, have perfect grammar, perfect punctuation. I have a precise grasp of the English language, and ASL. You don't get it. No need to downplay everyone else, seb. There's tons of posters here who have either a CI, HAs, or nothing, and post just as well as I do.
I think it should of been post's and not post"s".
- Status