Research Study

Wirelessly posted

faire_jour said:
KarissaMann05 said:
Wirelessly posted



No. That is false.

Usually, people tend to think deaf babies will not learn anything cos they can't hear anything to learn. All they do is so busy to focus on their ears and mouths, completely ignore the need of visual metords (sp) to learn something.

Just google up to find baby sign language. Plus, the founder of My Smart Hands did mention a few reasearchers noticed how d-eaf parents and deaf toddlers communicated so well before non-signer hearing toddlers can start to talk (usually two years old)...

Just saying...

EDIT: OOPS! Quote a wrong person! Sorry about that, Banjo. ^^;;;

EDIT II: (Removed the "*******" word.) I don't know why AllDeaf censored d-eaf parents. :confused:
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one study on hearing kids that shows that hearing babies who sign have slightly better language than those who don't. It has nothing to do with deaf kids. The research has shown that deaf kids in an oral enviroment have better spoken language scores than children in an ASL enviroment.
Click to expand...

Not so quite.
 
Only if u are putting speech skills as a priority. Many of us value academics and social development over speech skills.

I guess it is the hearing view.
 
Wirelessly posted

The research from whom? Please kindly show me. :ty:

The study show the reasons why both abled and disabled kids can learn eariler:

http://sign2me.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=33

http://deafness.about.com/od/babysigning/f/signspeech.htm

Unfortunately, ASL is still considered less important for deaf babies today. Unless the new research prove me otherwise...

I'll keep looking for more research whenever I have the time. My SK's Internet is a slow loading anyway.

Shel90 - yeah... that is what I said eariler, from my pervious posts.
 
faire_jour said:
The research has shown that deaf kids in an oral enviroment have better spoken language scores than children in an ASL enviroment.
Click to expand...

I'll like to see one on written language because it can be quite telling. Spoken and written languages are two different concepts even though they may be the same language.
 
Wirelessly posted

shel90 said:
Only if u are putting speech skills as a priority. Many of us value academics and social development over speech skills.

I guess it is the hearing view.
Click to expand...

I just read a study (i'll find it in the morning) that says that ci kids acheive the same in ALL areas as hearing kids. they tested language, reading, math, social skills and swlf esteem. they followed the kids for 5 years and found that the do every bit as well as hearing kids in ALL those areas.
 
Wirelessly posted

KarissaMann05 said:
Wirelessly posted

The research from whom? Please kindly show me. :ty:

The study show the reasons why both abled and disabled kids can learn eariler:

http://sign2me.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=33

http://deafness.about.com/od/babysigning/f/signspeech.htm

Unfortunately, ASL is still considered less important for deaf babies today. Unless the new research prove me otherwise...

I'll keep looking for more research whenever I have the time. My SK's Internet is a slow loading anyway.

Shel90 - yeah... that is what I said eariler, from my pervious posts.
Click to expand...

Moog, j.s. & geers, a.e. (2003). epilogue: major findings, conclusions and implications for deaf education. ear and hearing, 24(18), 124.
 
I am not an oral "failure". I am definitely an oral success. Still love my ASL though.

This week at work being oral is slowly killing me as I have bizarre miscommunications with my client with accents. Oral skills only go so far.
 
JennyB said:
I am not an oral "failure". I am definitely an oral success. Still love my ASL though.

This week at work being oral is slowly killing me as I have bizarre miscommunications with my client with accents. Oral skills only go so far.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it takes a special few hearing people to really understand what you mean while most deaf people immediately can relate.
 
shel90 said:
Unfortunately, it takes a special few hearing people to really understand what you mean while most deaf people immediately can relate.
Click to expand...

I work as a 1-1 support worker and here are two sample conversations from today...I recorded them right after they happened!

Me - "Where do you want to go?", Client - "To kill Tanya Stone.", Me *confused face*. Client - "To kill Tanya Stone.". Me, *looks around sees what is close* "You want to go to the dollar store?", Client - "Yes".

Client - "I hurt my ass", Me -"what?!?", Client - "I felt my ass", Me - "Are you swearing at me?", Client - *now talking loudly "I forgot my ass!". Me - "you forgot your what?"". Client *points at head*, Me- " Oh, you forgot your hat..."


My entire day was like this! To the point where my client just stopped talking to me.
 
shel90 said:
Only if u are putting speech skills as a priority. Many of us value academics and social development over speech skills.

I guess it is the hearing view.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Why would it matter if your speech skills are better? My speech skills are awesome, but who cares how good they are if it's really difficult for me to understand other people? Who cares, as long as I'm getting a good education and trying to better myself academically!


BTW, FJ said something about being able to hear a sound from 20 feet away (I think it was the 's' sound), if they are appropriately MAPped, but once again, not all CI children get the same benefit. Just like with HAs, not all children will hear the 's' sound from 20 feet away, even if appropriately adjusted.
 
natty_4ever said:
Bingo. Why would it matter if your speech skills are better? My speech skills are awesome, but who cares how good they are if it's really difficult for me to understand other people? Who cares, as long as I'm getting a good education and trying to better myself academically!


BTW, FJ said something about being able to hear a sound from 20 feet away (I think it was the 's' sound), if they are appropriately MAPped, but once again, not all CI children get the same benefit. Just like with HAs, not all children will hear the 's' sound from 20 feet away, even if appropriately adjusted.
Click to expand...

And that is why oral schools meet the children, discuss with the parents, and determine if the school would be a good fit. If they are not getting spoken language benefit from their devices, it would be inappropriate to place a child in that setting.
 
shel90 said:
Only if u are putting speech skills as a priority. Many of us value academics and social development over speech skills.

I guess it is the hearing view.
Click to expand...

But if the research shows that implanted, oral kids have the same acheivement in math, reading, language, and self esteem, you would be fine with it?

The study was "A Longitudinal Study of Auditory-Verbal Effectiveness"
Dimity Dornan, A.M., Ba.Sp.Th., F.S.P.A.A., LSLS Cert. AVT; Hear and Say Centre
Carol Flexer, Ph.D., CCC/A, LSLS Cert. AVT; University of Akron

It said "In her study, the children’s receptive and expressive language, speech production, reading and math skills, and self-esteem were assessed at various intervals during the fifty month time period and the results were astounding. In language progress, receptive vocabulary, speech progress, reading skills, and math skills (yes… that’s ALL of the areas tested), there was no significant difference between the hearing and AVT groups of children."

How do you deny that? What is left to say? Their academics and self-esteem were great, as is their language. What argument do you have now?
 
faire_jour said:
But if the research shows that implanted, oral kids have the same acheivement in math, reading, language, and self esteem, you would be fine with it?

The study was "A Longitudinal Study of Auditory-Verbal Effectiveness"
Dimity Dornan, A.M., Ba.Sp.Th., F.S.P.A.A., LSLS Cert. AVT; Hear and Say Centre
Carol Flexer, Ph.D., CCC/A, LSLS Cert. AVT; University of Akron

It said "In her study, the children’s receptive and expressive language, speech production, reading and math skills, and self-esteem were assessed at various intervals during the fifty month time period and the results were astounding. In language progress, receptive vocabulary, speech progress, reading skills, and math skills (yes… that’s ALL of the areas tested), there was no significant difference between the hearing and AVT groups of children."

How do you deny that? What is left to say? Their academics and self-esteem were great, as is their language. What argument do you have now?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I still stick to my beleifs because of the risk factor. What about those children who were left behind because of the oral-only philosophy? Do you and your AVT supporters say "Who cares about them as long as there are some children who are successful?"

It is still a risk factor...

Why do you have a problem with exposing BOTH to all?

I dont want to argue with you. I am sticking to my beliefs. You arent going to change my mind.
 
shel90 said:
Sorry, I still stick to my beleifs because of the risk factor. What about those children who were left behind because of the oral-only philosophy? Do you and your AVT supporters say "Who cares about them as long as there are some children who are successful?"

It is still a risk factor...

Why do you have a problem with exposing BOTH to all?

I dont want to argue with you. I am sticking to my beliefs. You arent going to change my mind.
Click to expand...

But the fact is that the kids aren't falling behind, they aren't missing out on academics, and their self esteem isn't lousy. All the things that people claim here, everyday, have been proven false. How do you deny the research?
 
shel90 said:
Sorry, I still stick to my beleifs because of the risk factor. What about those children who were left behind because of the oral-only philosophy? Do you and your AVT supporters say "Who cares about them as long as there are some children who are successful?"

It is still a risk factor...

Why do you have a problem with exposing BOTH to all?

I dont want to argue with you. I am sticking to my beliefs. You arent going to change my mind.
Click to expand...

hell yes, I am with you all the way. I would make sure my kids if they were deaf and will have both with no question.
 
faire_jour said:
But the fact is that the kids aren't falling behind, they aren't missing out on academics, and their self esteem isn't lousy. All the things that people claim here, everyday, have been proven false. How do you deny the research?
Click to expand...

What about the children who are falling behind? Oh wait, you can't find them in the statistics. Why is that? That's because the students were probably transferred so they are no longer included in the statistics.

I wouldn't be surprised if the students were transferred to the schools for the deaf. I used to attend a school for the deaf. There were some students with cochlear implants who were transferred to the school because they were falling behind at their old schools. There were also students who were in the oral program and they had to transfer because they couldn't keep up with their peers.
 
Banjo said:
What about the children who are falling behind? Oh wait, you can't find them in the statistics. Why is that? That's because the students were probably transferred so they are no longer included in the statistics.

I wouldn't be surprised if the students were transferred to the schools for the deaf. I used to attend a school for the deaf. There were some students with cochlear implants who were transferred to the school because they were falling behind at their old schools. There were also students who were in the oral program and they had to transfer because they couldn't keep up with their peers.
Click to expand...

The study followed a group of children. It didn't follow a school, or a program, there were no "transfers". And it showed that kids were caught up to hearing kids in all those areas.
 
faire_jour said:
The study followed a group of children. It didn't follow a school, or a program, there were no "transfers". And it showed that kids were caught up to hearing kids in all those areas.
Click to expand...

Who conducted it and paid for it?
 
Back
Top