Lies about CI's

[jillio]

I agree and I thank both her and FJ and others such as Cloggy too for opening up my eyes to the fact that cochlear implants and ASL can go hand and hand and give our kids even more possibilities.
Rick

Then why did you refuse ASL to your own child? Why do you not advocate for the use of ASL with children with cochlear implants?

 

[jillio]

Exactly....the full toolbox approach. It is very hard to tell which tools will benifit which kids.

Yes, but 100%? And at a sophiscated language level? Kids with CIs are doing well, and some of them have really good spoken language abilty......but a) there were deaf kids with HAs who had spoken language accessible to them in the past. There's still a lot of teens and kids with severe-profound losses who can access spoken language (into mild hoh levels) with hearing aids. and b) it remains to be seen whether or not they will develop pretty much on par with hearing kids spoken language. Even hoh kids still may deal with spoken language delays!



jillo, not to attack you or anything, but the cooking class/ASL enrichment sounds a lot like a) the typical toddler vocabululary and syntax intervention that would go on even in a hearing (non special needs) preschool) Little kids are still learning vocab and syntax and b) It sounds more like ...well one of my best friends attended a French-English bilingal program as a kid. Early on, kids whose first language was English might get "vocab and syntax" lessons en Francais. This sounds a lot like what Li Li is doing....which is AWESOME!!! Maybe, this will be a viable route to turn a bi bi program, into a true bilingal program.....one where dhh kids can become fluent in ASL AND spoken language.
Oh, and I do agree with you re: the fourth grade milestone. It does seem that MANY oral kids do well in the early grades, but then around fourth grade things get a lot harder, and kids start struggling.

Of course. That is what I said. The class is intended to combine kinesthetic experience with new vocab to increase retention.

 

[jillio]

Yes. I know a Teacher of the Deaf who knows and uses ASL and works at an oral school and advocates for spoken language for deaf children.

Name, or even school she works at?

 

[jillio]

Just to let you know, This also false to assumed that many oral severe-profound deaf with hearing aids can't pick up words in their surrounding either. otherwise I wouldn't know how to pronounce "SheRa" or "Gargamel" in Smurf.

It's complicated to explain.

But just because a kid is picking up and repeating words and phrases is no indication of the development of linquistic skills in that langauge. But, then, you already know that.

 

[jillio]

I disagree, from personal experience. My daughter was labeled as one of those kids who "can't" understand and use spoken language. When she had hearing aids, she couldn't. She had, literally, zero speech understand and maybe, a two dozen spoken words that she could use (and maybe 3 that were understandable to strangers). After her CI, we continued using the same therapist (and for almost a year, the same educational placement) and she gained 2 years worth of spoken language in 9 months. The only thing that changed was her access to sound.

Personal experience from a hearing perspective. Can't say it enough.

 

[jillio]

The key here is early intervention. Li got her CI at 2 years old and not at 5 or 6 years old then it'd be a whole different story. This is true for all babies born with a hearing loss, the key is to get the sound to them early as possible. We are born wired with our auditory cortex ready to go after birth on receiving sound and for our brain to make sense of it.

The key is not to get SOUND to them as soon as possible. The key is to get COMMUNICATION to them as soon as possible.

And your adutory cortext is wired long before birth. At birth, a deaf child's auditory cortex begins to process visual information pertinent to communication and understanding of the environment. Nor does a newborn's brain immediately make sense of sound. It is a learning process that actually takes longer than processing visual information to meaning takes. Really, learn a bit about cognitive and neuro-psychology before you make any more mistakes in information.

 

[jillio]

Are you asking if she could hear beeps in the booth or if she could understand spoken language?

She could hear beeps, she could not understand spoken language.

She didn't speech read at all?

 

[jillio]

Depends on your definition. The rates of non-use go up after around age 5, and the language outcomes decline.

And the improvement in those implanted earlier also level off and reach the point of the same improvement seen in HA users after the age of 5.

You have to read all of the research.

 

[jillio]

Yes. It has been shown again and again. They have done studies that show that kids implanted before age 18 months have auditory cortexes that process spoken language like hearing kids, not deaf kids. (they aren't hearing, they just process spoken language in the same way, at the same speeds as hearing kids.)

That is a misrepresentation of the data. Processing sound the same does not mean understanding speech the same. It simply means that auditory stimulus is processed in the auditory cortex. Someone who is aphasic processes spoken language the same as anyone else, but the degree of understanding is different.

 

[jillio]

For the parents who did just that...followed the recipe perfectly and with everything they have (appropriate services, follow ups, therapy, professionals, language access, and family support) and yet still experienced seeing their child fail...

I hope they don't read this. It will break their hearts.

Exactly. Makes me extremely angry. And these are the ones that want to complain about hearing parents being attacked for their choices on this board. They have just labeled every parent and every child who did not develop spoken language as a failure.

 

[jillio]

But what would cause it? A deaf child's brain works just fine. Yes, there are kids who have other "issues" or have disabilities, processing issues or other barriers to learning or using spoken language but if we are talking about a typical, early identified, early "intervention'ed" deaf child who uses appropriate technology and has involved parents and professionals, I believe they will become a fluent spoken language user. (Also, if they begin to have struggles, they would have parents and professional who would intervene before they fell behind and it caused issues).

But, this in no way means that ASL is bad or would not be of great benefit.

And you have reached this conclusion based on what? Three or four years experience with one child?

 

[jillio]

Yes, Deaf children with Deaf parents are immersed in ASL from the start and do wonderfully! But deaf children of hearing parents are not typically immersed in sign without therapy and directed learning. Just like those who suddenly hear with CIs after years of silence, and need to catch up using avt, aural rehab. etc., deaf children who are not born into a Deaf community require a lot of help to become fluent in ASL. Even if parents find a way to become fluent VERY quickly, most of the time their extended family, neighbors, schools, television, movies, etc. do not offer sign input. I've even heard of siblings not learning their own brother's / sister's language.

The language a child experiences all around him is his natural language. Unless enormous effort is made by all around him to provide immersion in ASL at home and school and in the community, spoken language will most often be the "natural language" of a deaf child with a CIs or with adequate amplification from HAs.

Incorrect.

 

[jillio]

Isn't the "natural language of the child" what the parents use and teach?
As for Cochlear Implants exploding in gas stations-any recent occurrence? Does Google know?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

No.

 

[GrendelQ]

No.

Yes.

 

[jillio]

Yes.

Expand. Because you are, from a cognitive standpoint, from an educational standpoint, from a psychological standpoint, and from a realistic standpoint extremely misinformed. But, hey, looks like that is a permanent condition for you, as you simply refuse to expand your knowledge base.

Here's a clue to where you are making your mistake:

Even though spoken English may be the ONLY language a child is exposed to and uses it does not transfer to that child using that language as a native. Really, you have numerous gaps in your knowledge base that are causing you to come to erroneous conclusions.

 

[GrendelQ]

Expand. Because you are, from a cognitive standpoint, from an educational standpoint, from a psychological standpoint, and from a realistic standpoint extremely misinformed. But, hey, looks like that is a permanent condition for you, as you simply refuse to expand your knowledge base.

Here's a clue to where you are making your mistake:

Even though spoken English may be the ONLY language a child is exposed to and uses it does not transfer to that child using that language as a native. Really, you have numerous gaps in your knowledge base that are causing you to come to erroneous conclusions.

"But hey" dear Jillio, you know very little about me and your assumptions are generally wrong, so please stop the personal insults and attacks on me that you are so fond of. Perhaps it helps to ease some frustration or bitterness that makes you behave the way you do, but your viciousness and spite just harms the dialogue.

If a child is not exposed to ASL in his or her daily life, it cannot be considered his or her natural language simply by default because the child is deaf or HOH. Most deaf children born to hearing families in the US encounter ASL naturally in their lives about as much as they do Auslan, BSL, LIS, or Balinese, etc. A child's natural language is what develops spontaneously based on what is in use around the child, initially that used by parents and surrounding family, then in the surrounding community, and later, in school. Deaf children in the US aren't spontaneously acquiring LIS. They are also not spontaneously acquiring ASL without directed learning and immersion.

Whatever language a child is both immersed in and has access to is what develops as child's natural language. If a deaf child has access to speech sounds (via CIs/HAs) and is surrounded by a family and community using spoken language, this will be his natural language. If a deaf child is surrounded by family and community using ASL, this will be his natural language. A child without significant exposure to ASL as a primary means of communication around him won't develop that language spontaneously (naturally). My deaf child won't develop Chinese Sign Language spontaneously -- even though she's a card-carrying deaf Chinese -- because it's not in use around her.

 

[jillio]

"But hey" dear Jillio, you know very little about me and your assumptions are generally wrong, so please stop the personal insults and attacks on me that you are so fond of. Perhaps it helps to ease some frustration or bitterness that makes you behave the way you do, but your viciousness and spite just harms the dialogue.

If a child is not exposed to ASL in his or her daily life, it cannot be considered his or her natural language simply by default because the child is deaf or HOH. Most deaf children born to hearing families in the US encounter ASL naturally in their lives about as much as they do Auslan, BSL, LIS, or Balinese, etc. A child's natural language is what develops spontaneously based on what is in use around the child, initially that used by parents and surrounding family, then in the surrounding community, and later, in school. Deaf children in the US aren't spontaneously acquiring LIS. They are also not spontaneously acquiring ASL without directed learning and immersion.

Whatever language a child is both immersed in and has access to is what develops as child's natural language. If a deaf child has access to speech sounds (via CIs/HAs) and is surrounded by a family and community using spoken language, this will be his natural language. If a deaf child is surrounded by family and community using ASL, this will be his natural language. A child without significant exposure to ASL as a primary means of communication around him won't develop that language spontaneously (naturally). My deaf child won't develop Chinese Sign Language spontaneously -- even though she's a card-carrying deaf Chinese -- because it's not in use around her.

I don't have to know you to know that what you are saying is wrong. Just because it is what you want to believe does not mean, in any way, that is correct. Just because a deaf child is exposed to spoken language does not mean that the child will "naturally" develop native use of that language.

Now you are arguing that a child can't develop a language without exposure. Well, of course not. No one has even presumed to say they can. That point is moot.

But exposure doesn't quarantee the natural nature nor native use of a language.

When you are ready to be serious about the topic, let me know.

 

[rockdrummer]

:roll:

 

[GrendelQ]

I don't have to know you to know that what you are saying is wrong. Just because it is what you want to believe does not mean, in any way, that is correct. Just because a deaf child is exposed to spoken language does not mean that the child will "naturally" develop native use of that language.

Now you are arguing that a child can't develop a language without exposure. Well, of course not. No one has even presumed to say they can. That point is moot.

But exposure doesn't quarantee the natural nature nor native use of a language.

When you are ready to be serious about the topic, let me know.

I see, so you are narrowing your argument to encompass just those deaf children from hearing families who are fully immersed in an ASL language environment at home and in their communities rather than the spoken language environment of a typical hearing family. Yes, Jillio -- you nailed it there: I'd agree with you that for those lucky children, ASL would turn out to be their natural language.

Now, about the other 90% ...

 

[jillio]

I see, so you are narrowing your argument to encompass just those deaf children from hearing families who are fully immersed in an ASL language environment at home and in their communities rather than the spoken language environment of a typical hearing family. Yes, Jillio -- you nailed it there: I'd agree with you that for those lucky children, ASL would turn out to be their natural language.

Now, about the other 90% ...

Oh, please, Grendel. I am not narrowing my argument to anything. The point is, you obviously, by your responses, don't even understand the argument to begin with.

Cognitive psychology, educational psychology, linguistics, and developmental psychology and the majority if the deaf community, all agree with my assertions. You have, what?