Quantitative and Qualitative Linguistic Input

loml

New Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
0
This paper studies the linguistic input attended by a deaf child exposed to cued speech (CS) in the final part of her prelinguistic period (18–24 months). Subjects are the child, her mother, and her therapist. Analyses have provided data about the quantity of input directed to the child (oral input, more than 1,000 words per half-an-hour session; cued ratio, more than 60% of oral input; and attended ratio, more than 55% of oral input), its linguistic quality (lexical variety, grammatical complexity, etc.), and other properties of interaction (child attention and use of spontaneous gestures). Results show that both adults provided a rich linguistic input to the child and that the child attended most of the input that the adults cued. These results might explain the positive linguistic development of children exposed early to CS.

Torres, S., Moreno-Torres, I., (2006). Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child With Cued Speech: A Case Study. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 , 438-448.
 
Loml, not to offend but I think you've played/used one too many dipthongs for something that benefits too few in the population.
 
eating and elephant one bite at a time

Loml, not to offend but I think you've played/used one too many dipthongs for something that benefits too few in the population.

Tousi - you do not offend me. Not that many dipthongs in the title actually. :)

I do not agree with your statement of:
benefits too few in the population.
The interent hosts an immense popluation.
 
How about if you offer us all an explanation of quantitative input vs qualitative input, and what the differences in studies designed on these defintions are?
 
Is this study based on one child?
 
That doesn't show anything. You can't make a conclusion base on one child. You don't have a control group, nor a valid comparison to another group.

Such study would be like using Michael Jordan as a generalization for all black men are excellent basketball players.

Pleaseeeeess.
 
Hmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by shel90
Well, I had a long chat with that coworker who grew up using CS today at lunch break.

Here is her take and experience with CS.

She was enrolled in an oral-only environment for the first 10 years with no visual cues to languages nor ASL. She was reading and writing at late 1st grade level by the time she entered 5th grade. Her parents got fed up with the failure of the oral-only programs and sent her to a CS program. She said that was when her English skills took off and she was able to narrow the gap with her literacy skills. She said she thanks CS for helping her that. However, she did say that she didnt feel that CS should be used for language acquisition just only as a teaching tool to develop literacy skills. I asked her if she had ASL from the start would it deprived her from developing fluency in English and she said no way. In addition to that, she said she would definitely not have gaps in her literacy skills. Having said that, she knows she can write good English but it is not creative nor advanced as she would like it to be. She learned ASL at the age of 15 and she said that ASL was the best thing she ever learned but she also does support CS too. Like me, she is against the oral-only approach.

originally posted by jillio
Excellent example of real life case study experience.



This paper studies the linguistic input attended by a deaf child exposed to cued speech (CS) in the final part of her prelinguistic period (18–24 months). Subjects are the child, her mother, and her therapist. Analyses have provided data about the quantity of input directed to the child (oral input, more than 1,000 words per half-an-hour session; cued ratio, more than 60% of oral input; and attended ratio, more than 55% of oral input), its linguistic quality (lexical variety, grammatical complexity, etc.), and other properties of interaction (child attention and use of spontaneous gestures). Results show that both adults provided a rich linguistic input to the child and that the child attended most of the input that the adults cued. These results might explain the positive linguistic development of children exposed early to CS.

Torres, S., Moreno-Torres, I., (2006). Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child With Cued Speech: A Case Study. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11 , 438-448.

Originally Posted by shel90
Is this study based on one child?

Yeppers. It is a case study. No generalizability.
 
That doesn't show anything. You can't make a conclusion base on one child. You don't have a control group, nor a valid comparison to another group.

Such study would be like using Michael Jordan as a generalization for all black men are excellent basketball players.

Pleaseeeeess.

Good point..
 
Originally Posted by shel90


originally posted by jillio






Originally Posted by shel90

Exactly what is your point? Do you have one? I said shel's example was a perfect example of real life case study experience, not that it was generalizable. However, you are attempting to use a case study as support for widespread implementation of CS. Obviously, you don't know the difference.
 
Originally Posted by shel90


originally posted by jillio






Originally Posted by shel90

My post about my friend is not a published article. It is just one person's experience that I just wanted to share not to use it to generalize to a population cuz that would be wrong.

A published article using one kid needs to be taken with the understanding that it is a one case study and cant be used to generalize to a population.
 
My post about my friend is not a published article. It is just one person's experience that I just wanted to share not to use it to generalize to a population cuz that would be wrong.

A published article using one kid needs to be taken with the understanding that it is a one case study and cant be used to generalize to a population.

shel90- My post clearly states that it is a case study. In fact an excellent example of a real life case study experience.:roll:
 
shel90- My post clearly states that it is a case study. In fact an excellent example of a real life case study experience.

Being used as a way to promote a generalized concept. There's the difference, even though you refuse to recognize it. And, BTW, are you going to explain the difference between qualitative input and quantitative input, and the implications of such? If you are going to cite research as a foundation for your position, you should be able to at least demonstrate a working knowledge of that which you cite.
 
Back
Top