Information about CI as an adult

[Audiofuzzy]

I remember when my kids were little and they were learning to talk. Sure they could babble, they could hear themselves, but in the end even though they had a *voice* and they could hear that *voice*. What taught them what each word meant?

What taught them how to put those words together in a sentence? Who taught them to understand that the words they were putting together made sense?

When you focus on speech, ie:speech therapy. Normally they only focus on how your sounding out each word.

This is really not language development. The is focusing on the *voice* part of speech only.

That's my opinion.

But would they learn even this -*voice" - if they couldn't hear it? would they learn 'sentences' if they couldn't hear it?
I agree that implanted children should be taught more than merely a proper sound of the word, Are you saying they aren't?


Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

No, it's you who don't understand - mechanic IS the issue. The other variables depend exactly on THAT.
While the brain is still developing language, precisely because of the mechanics it will develop hearing and speech better with CI because the CI is able to stimulate nerves that HAs is not.

Fuzzy

It is not the CI that stimulates the areas in the brain responsible for language acquisition, Fuzzy, it is auditory stimuli. Any auditory stimuli. And, the areas responsible for language acquisition are also stimulated through the pocessing of manual language. Once again, you are assuming that the CI performs functions that it does not. Your knowledge of brain function is lacking.

 

[jillio]

And that is why you keep missing the big picture. There's more to the deaf child than his speech. Yes, I agree that early implantation is better for the ability to hear. But if the child's hearing is the only thing you focus on, that child may not have good language skills. A CI doesn't automatly translate to good hearing or good language skills. If CIs always meant good hearing, how do you explain Shel's students? While the CI is a marked improvement over HAs, there are still gaps with the CI.

If I were to implant my child, I'd be more concerned about the child's ability to understand what the hearing is saying and I'd be much more concerned about developing language skills on the child's part. Yes, good speech is important but that's not all there is to the deaf child. A deaf child has an innate need to commincate with others; too many hearing people ignore that. I see endless posts on how parents don't know signs and how hard it is to understand hearing especially in groups. This is where so many hearing parents go wrong. They're so focused on the child's speech and the ability to hear that they don't realize how important language skills are for school and how important it is for the child to interact with those around him. Communication is vital for the deaf child.

Once language delays start and becomes severe, it's difficult to overcome. It's not one of those things that goes away with time. You have to address it with remedial work. I'd much rather prevent delays in the first place. I've seen far too much of the aftermath of those who were language delayed to risk raising my child the oral way only.

 

[jillio]

No, I didn't "bought" into the "myth" - I thought about it, considered it, came to my own conclusion,
and it's my personal opinion that learning to hear and speak for a deaf child is much harder than learning to sign - as some pple said here themselves signing is "natural" for a deaf person whereas speaking is difficult,
so I figured a child who must work harder to recognize sounds and especially repeat those sounds will focus less and work less perfecting oral language if given an easier way - signing. That is why I think for the sake of best benefits from CI, it's better to postpone signing for a while. The signing can always be returned to later on. Especially in the light of how those first three years after birth are best for developing hearing and speech.

A child who achieved good oral skills, can then be taught signing at anytime.

Fuzzy

There are volumes of research that prove your assumption wrong, Fuzzy. Signing does not interfere with the development of oral skills. But what it does do, and this is an advantage for any deaf child, is facillitate language acquisition and development. That is the important issue. If a child does not develop language appropriately, they will lack communication skills as well as academic skills and be restricted for a lifetime. It does not matter how a child communicates, but that they are able to communicate.

 

[jillio]

I remember when my kids were little and they were learning to talk. Sure they could babble, they could hear themselves, but in the end even though they had a *voice* and they could hear that *voice*. What taught them what each word meant?

What taught them how to put those words together in a sentence? Who taught them to understand that the words they were putting together made sense?

When you focus on speech, ie:speech therapy. Normally they only focus on how your sounding out each word.

This is really not language development. The is focusing on the *voice* part of speech only.

That's my opinion.

Exactly. And far too often, so much time is devoted to getting a deaf child to replicate sounds through speech therapy that the issue of language development and use is neglected. Consequently, lower academic achievement and underemployment.

 

[shel90]

No, I didn't "bought" into the "myth" - I thought about it, considered it, came to my own conclusion,
and it's my personal opinion that learning to hear and speak for a deaf child is much harder than learning to sign - as some pple said here themselves signing is "natural" for a deaf person whereas speaking is difficult,
so I figured a child who must work harder to recognize sounds and especially repeat those sounds will focus less and work less perfecting oral language if given an easier way - signing. That is why I think for the sake of best benefits from CI, it's better to postpone signing for a while. The signing can always be returned to later on. Especially in the light of how those first three years after birth are best for developing hearing and speech.

A child who achieved good oral skills, can then be taught signing at anytime.

Fuzzy

and then the children doesnt develop good oral skills? Many years of language development is lost forever and the children becomes delayed in language even if they learned signing later. I know cuz I speak from experience...when they are exposed to signing later, those children are unable to develop fluency in ASL so might as well forget developing fluency in English. That is the whole point is about...sign language cannot wait simply for the sake of oral skills.

I achieved good oral skils but since I learned ASL, my writing and reading skills improved tremendously. If I had been exposed to ASL from the get go, who knows where my literacy skills would be at now and dont forget to consider socio-emotional skills as well. Mine were severely compromised for the sake of having good speech skills. If I had to do it over again, I would rather have poor speech skills but have stronger literacy skills and a better self-image growing up. I was rejected big time by most hearing people despite my good speech skills so the purpose of having them was defeated anyway.

 

[vallee]

and then the children doesnt develop good oral skills? Many years of language development is lost forever and the children becomes delayed in language even if they learned signing later. I know cuz I speak from experience...when they are exposed to signing later, those children are unable to develop fluency in ASL so might as well forget developing fluency in English. That is the whole point is about...sign language cannot wait simply for the sake of oral skills.

I achieved good oral skils but since I learned ASL, my writing and reading skills improved tremendously. If I had been exposed to ASL from the get go, who knows where my literacy skills would be at now and dont forget to consider socio-emotional skills as well. Mine were severely compromised for the sake of having good speech skills. If I had to do it over again, I would rather have poor speech skills but have stronger literacy skills and a better self-image growing up. I was rejected big time by most hearing people despite my good speech skills so the purpose of having them was defeated anyway.

Shel,

What services does your school system and state provide for oral language development? How do as a teacher assist the students in development of oral communication, ASL, and language development? I'm in Tennessee and we might different.

I work with students that are language impaired, degress of austism, SLD(specific learning disability), hoh, visually impaired, mr(mentally retarded), and anyother disability that allows the students to be in the regular education classroom.

We provide speech language therapy. I work with our SLP and use lessons in my classroom to assist in language therapy. I teach strategies in how to comprehension and fluency. I also teach classroom teachers how to communicate the how not to single out a student.

I also set hours based on need. I work with students for as little as 45 minutes a day to 4:36 minutes a day. I assist parents with strategies and agencies that can help. I provide assist in SSI and organizations that can help.

Since you have CI students, what does your school provide? How do they compare to students wo CI or with HA?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

It is not the CI that stimulates the areas in the brain responsible for language acquisition, Fuzzy, it is auditory stimuli. Any auditory stimuli. And, the areas responsible for language acquisition are also stimulated through the pocessing of manual language. Once again, you are assuming that the CI performs functions that it does not. Your knowledge of brain function is lacking.

lololol.
ANY auditory stimuli? then you agree the more stimuli the more sound acquistion?

And if these happen to be WORDS- then more words acquisition?, and if the words turn into sentences - the end results is oral language developed?

While I agree manual language is developed in similar way it does not provide the level of communication with hearing pple as oral langauge does.
And lets not forget the oral communication is a dominant one in society.


Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

and then the children doesnt develop good oral skills? Many years of language development is lost forever and the children becomes delayed in language even if they learned signing later. I know cuz I speak from experience...when they are exposed to signing later, those children are unable to develop fluency in ASL so might as well forget developing fluency in English. That is the whole point is about...sign language cannot wait simply for the sake of oral skills.

I achieved good oral skils but since I learned ASL, my writing and reading skills improved tremendously. If I had been exposed to ASL from the get go, who knows where my literacy skills would be at now and dont forget to consider socio-emotional skills as well. Mine were severely compromised for the sake of having good speech skills. If I had to do it over again, I would rather have poor speech skills but have stronger literacy skills and a better self-image growing up. I was rejected big time by most hearing people despite my good speech skills so the purpose of having them was defeated anyway.

I don't know about you Shel so I can not say if indeed ASL alone is reponsible for your English skills improvement. Perhaps in this aspect that once you understood what is being said to you you were able to pick up on that, and that does make a huge difference.

But I also was the only one HoH in a hearing schools, and my writting skills were superior to hearing children. Even in spelling. Especially in spelling.

But my parents worked toward not only me acquiring spoken language, they worked toward literacy skills as well.

Fuzzy

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Exactly. And far too often, so much time is devoted to getting a deaf child to replicate sounds through speech therapy that the issue of language development and use is neglected. Consequently, lower academic achievement and underemployment.

When I am saying "oral", "being able to hear and speak", I mean not only the ability to pronounce single words correctly, I mean ability to develop spoken langauge and in turn - literacy.

CI just for being able to correctly pronounce single words is not satisfactory to me, either.

But lower academic achievement and underemployment is not the outcome of merely implanting and CI itself and concentraing on speech therapy only - it depends on more than that. The proof is in the these two girls - Rachel and Melissa.

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

I don't know about you Shel so I can not say if indeed ASL alone is reponsible for your English skills improvement. Perhaps in this aspect that once you understood what is being said to you you were able to pick up on that, and that does make a huge difference.

But I also was the only one HoH in a hearing schools, and my writting skills were superior to hearing children. Even in spelling. Especially in spelling.

But my parents worked toward not only me acquiring spoken language, they worked toward literacy skills as well.

Fuzzy

I always got 100% on spelling tests but failed tests relying on the phonetical approach such as identifying the number of syllables. I think those tests were biased towards me but I was forced to take them anyway.

My English skills were always good growing up but I felt something lacking whenever I wrote. Since learning ASL, I realized it was the creative aspect of my writing that was missing. Writing has become so much easier wheras before I had to think so hard about how to structure my papers or paragraphs.

Also, I didnt acquire language in the natural way..I was taught language which is a completely different process from how hearing children develop language. It put me at a disavantage no matter how hard I worked.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Also, I didnt acquire language in the natural way..I was taught language which is a completely different process from how hearing children develop language. It put me at a disavantage no matter how hard I worked.

Could you explain more, please? I have no clue, my apologies.

Fuzzy

 

[shel90]

Could you explain more, please? I have no clue, my apologies.

Fuzzy

I didnt pick up language by the ones around such as family members, peers, or teachers. I was taught it in a formal way. If I was in a signing environment, I would have acquired language just like how hearing children acquire language rather than being taught it.

 

[Bear]

But would they learn even this -*voice" - if they couldn't hear it? would they learn 'sentences' if they couldn't hear it?
I agree that implanted children should be taught more than merely a proper sound of the word, Are you saying they aren't?


Fuzzy

Im saying speech skills that are taught through the usual channels such as speech class or speech therapy only focuses on the sounds of the words and pronunciation of the words.

I used to go to both and I do know from experience what the focus is.

MANY deaf people learn speech while signing. I believe signing would help a deaf person learn how to speak as well. Because when you sign, you are taught sentence structure as well as the expressive meaning of the word. So when the child speaks that word, not only does the child now know how to use that word in a sentence appropriately but also the right way to express that word.

Speech skills is a whole lot more than a voice. And while you may say that hearing the speech will also teach that, I dont see that it does. Because it does why do they teach expressive speech in school?

Such as showing a picture of a happy person and asking that child about the picture and such. That is expressive language development and also it is creative development. Both which I feel can be taught faster in sign as signs are generally using the whole body to express thoughts and feelings.

 

[Kaitin]

Miss Delectable has a great post in Deaf News: Speaking and signing called key to richer life

From Sacbee.Com: Speaking and signing called key to richer life

In the midst of a language lesson, the deaf Vacaville boy looks up with alarm and grabs the special transmitter on the side of his head.

"I can't hear," says 9-year-old Joey Marchand, indicating the spot where a device was implanted in 2001 to help him hear. "Going booo, booo."

At his teacher's urging, Joey gets back on task, relying only on sign language.

That easy transition between two worlds – the hearing and the deaf – was not what Joey's parents expected when they anguished over the controversial cochlear implant.

-
But in the spacious special education classroom, as dying batteries left Joey without sound, the value of straddling the two worlds is completely clear.

"What does it mean, 'compound?' " teacher Alicia O'Leary asks him in speech and sign language, pointing to words like raincoat, cookbook and snowman.

"Two words," Joey responds, holding up two fingers.

Being able to use both modes of communication doesn't just come in handy when something goes wrong with the implant. Experts say it also allows deaf children to access the deeper meanings of the world around them, which could increase their future academic options.

-
After years of wanting Joey to rely primarily on his implant for hearing and speech, Joey's parents now see benefits in the dual approach.

"I realized, what good is speech without language?" said Joey's mother, Christina Marchand. "If you can say everything perfectly but you can't understand what you are saying, there is no use in saying it."

-

A deaf child can learn to say the word "apple," for example. "But he can also learn to count them, learn the names of the different varieties, discover the ways they are grown," he said. "We are so happy when he just says 'apple,' which in the grand scheme of his life is the least important."

The approach is especially important for kids like Joey, who had virtually no language for the first three years of his life, said Lois Keenan, the Solano County district's program director.

"Eighty percent of what we learn is overheard," she explained. "If you haven't overheard English from birth to 3 you have all kinds of holes, especially content holes."

Joey is now learning English much as a non-native speaker learns a second language, she said. And there are limitations in the quality of his emerging hearing. Sign language, she explained, fills in some gaps while he grows more proficient in all aspects of English language.

 

[deafskeptic]

I always got 100% on spelling tests but failed tests relying on the phonetical approach such as identifying the number of syllables. I think those tests were biased towards me but I was forced to take them anyway.
Phonics were never my forte either. I remember getting college grade levels on my SAT-HI test in 11 and 12 grade. I also remember taking the hearing SAT (I think it was the SAT) and I bombed the phonics section so badly that I ended up with a 10 grade level in English.
My English skills were always good growing up but I felt something lacking whenever I wrote. Since learning ASL, I realized it was the creative aspect of my writing that was missing. Writing has become so much easier wheras before I had to think so hard about how to structure my papers or paragraphs.

I remember my first A+ in English. This was in 5th grade and the teacher read us a story from the pov of a cranky baby. She had us write a story from the pov of a character. My story was from the pov of my dog. I was certain I'd fail because I didn't take the safe way by writing of a character with pov closer to that of the baby.

I did notice that my grammar improved since I learned ASL. Too bad the same can't be said for my spelling. :P

Also, I didnt acquire language in the natural way..I was taught language which is a completely different process from how hearing children develop language. It put me at a disavantage no matter how hard I worked.

Nor did I. I sound a good deal more bookish than many hearing.

 

[dreama]

A child who achieved good oral skills, can then be taught signing at anytime.

Fuzzy

Not if they lose their sight they can't.

I agree with Deaf skeptic. I've met children in oral only programs and they have communication problems that signing deaf don't.

 

[jillio]

lololol.
ANY auditory stimuli? then you agree the more stimuli the more sound acquistion?

And if these happen to be WORDS- then more words acquisition?, and if the words turn into sentences - the end results is oral language developed?

While I agree manual language is developed in similar way it does not provide the level of communication with hearing pple as oral langauge does.
And lets not forget the oral communication is a dominant one in society.


Fuzzy

I never agreed to any statement like that. And once again, Fuzzy, you don't get the whole process of langauge acquisition and the basic reasons that an oral only nevbironment is respsonible for language delay that results in life long cognitive problems. Perhaps you don't fully understand it because you present a perfect picture of jus that situation.