Research Study

A said:
This is really confusing. How old is this research? If I remember correctly, someone been saying that kids who was implanted late are behind their peers and that they need to be implanted as soon as possible. If this early test, then they were either testing kids who were implanted late, or testing kids who are too young right now.
Click to expand...

It's new research that was presented for the first time in the last month. I know that people don't like it, but the new research is clearly proving old sterotypes wrong.
 
A said:
I think they would be disqualified, wouldn't they? because they switched school and not really quite bibi and no longer oral only.
Click to expand...

They weren't following a group at a school, just a group of implanted kids. They followed them for 5 years. If they had started using sign, or fallen behind, that would be part of the research, and the results would reflect that.
 
faire_jour said:
They weren't following a group at a school, just a group of implanted kids. They followed them for 5 years. If they had started using sign, or fallen behind, that would be part of the research, and the results would reflect that.
Click to expand...

That is sound like your study is not included any kid with CI who behind fallen or using sign or anything else. I still can't find your study, yet. Are you sure it was last month?

Well, if your study is true, then I guess that would bad news for me anyway. :|
 
KarissaMann05 said:
That is sound like your study is not included any kid with CI who behind fallen or using sign or anything else. I still can't find your study, yet. Are you sure it was last month?

Well, if your study is true, then I guess that would bad news for me anyway. :|
Click to expand...

It picked a random group of kids with CI's and paired them against a group of heearing kids and followed then for 50 months. It tested both groups in language, speech, math, reading and self esteem. At the end of the study there was no difference in any of those areas between the hearing kids and the CI kids.
 
I thinking about the research on BiBi vs. oral. I didn't realize you were talking about that research.

Although, according to LDonline, even kids with mild hearing loss ( with HAs, I'm sure) have issues. So, I don't know how CI can be much better.
 
A said:
I thinking about the research on BiBi vs. oral. I didn't realize you were talking about that research.

Although, according to LDonline, even kids with mild hearing loss ( with HAs, I'm sure) have issues. So, I don't know how CI can be much better.
Click to expand...

Most kids with a mild loss are very late identified (usually around age 5) and generally don't get therapy or the school accomidations that a child with a CI gets. So, they miss out on information, everyday, growing up, and no one notices or goes back to fill in those gaps, because they think they are doing "good enough" because they speak well.
 
Anij said:
I'd love to see more research about the benefits of bilingualism (or multilingualism) for those who are Hoh or deaf. Also regarding the dichotomy of mulitlingualism being encouraged in the hearing world, yet discouraged for those who are hoh/deaf (in terms of visual language)

For years a horrifically large percentage of Audiologists (including 3 of my own over the years) were formally taught, and then regurgitated the myth that if a Hoh or deaf child/adult learned sign language (or any manual communication) it would negatively impact their speech and listening skills ... however this is simply NOT true.

In the hearing world, bilingualism and multi-lingualism are known to be positive attributes which increase intelligent and linguistic comprehension - thus encouraged in most, if not all countries (there are a great many countries in which it is perfectly normal for people to grow up fluent, or nearly so in 2 or more languages ).
Thus there is a massive inconsistency in the idea that hoh or deaf individuals may somehow be harmed my learning another language, and will somehow use a specific language, or type of language as a "crutch". This is specially an "invented concern" in terms of visual languages which are so naturally suited to those who's hearing loss making comprehending speech difficult, if not impossible.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
faire_jour said:
Most kids with a mild loss are very late identified (usually around age 5) and generally don't get therapy or the school accomidations that a child with a CI gets. So, they miss out on information, everyday, growing up, and no one notices or goes back to fill in those gaps, because they think they are doing "good enough" because they speak well.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, but they are HOH, not hearing so there will be issues along the way.

I know a person who is mildly HOH in one ear (no HA), and hearing in the other. I don't know if he is born that way (I don't think they know either). his sister is one of my good friends. even with his hearing ear, it seem like his other ear affect them because they constantly remind me about his mild hearing loss in that ear. He does seem like he struggle alittle bit with communication.

I also think as long as there's a negative image of deaf, they will be emotional issues. Some people try so hard not to be deaf because the way people view it.
 
Wirelessly posted

faire_jour said:
KarissaMann05 said:
That is sound like your study is not included any kid with CI who behind fallen or using sign or anything else. I still can't find your study, yet. Are you sure it was last month?

Well, if your study is true, then I guess that would bad news for me anyway. :|
Click to expand...

It picked a random group of kids with CI's and paired them against a group of heearing kids and followed then for 50 months. It tested both groups in language, speech, math, reading and self esteem. At the end of the study there was no difference in any of those areas between the hearing kids and the CI kids.
Click to expand...

The last sentence in your quote, I'm sure that a lot of parents would want that.....
 
faire_jour said:
Moog, j.s. & geers, a.e. (2003). epilogue: major findings, conclusions and implications for deaf education. ear and hearing, 24(18), 124.
Click to expand...

The authors you quote are highly biased. The all are employed by the Moog Center for Deaf Education, an oral ONLY curriculum. Moog Center St. Louis - Home One must be careful interpreting data when there is strong potential for secondary gain.
 
DeafDoc1 said:
The authors you quote are highly biased. The all are employed by the Moog Center for Deaf Education, an oral ONLY curriculum. Moog Center St. Louis - Home One must be careful interpreting data when there is strong potential for secondary gain.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing before but refrain from saying anything because I probably would have been called biased.
 
I've been to the Moog Center and I saw too many children in tears being forced to do things they didn't want to do. I was there for a tour put on by the local deaf club I was in at the time.
 
That's like dismissing Harlan Lane's research. Yeah, he is mighty biased too, does that mean that I shouldn't believe the research he does?
 
KristinaB said:
I've been to the Moog Center and I saw too many children in tears being forced to do things they didn't want to do. I was there for a tour put on by the local deaf club I was in at the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because hearing children never cry at preschool :roll:
 
faire_jour said:
That's like dismissing Harlan Lane's research. Yeah, he is mighty biased too, does that mean that I shouldn't believe the research he does?
Click to expand...

I said nothing about not believing, what I said was that one must be careful in critically analyzing information and not accepting the author's conclusion as fact. By doing that historically, we caused an entire generation to believe vaccinations could cause autism. We now know that shoddy research techniques and inaccurate conclusions were to blame.

Moog utilized a self-selected population (people already enrolled in her program); she utilized assessment tools which she (at least in part) developed and have not been fully validated (validity = you really are testing what you think you're testing) or proven reliable (multiple testers will all get the same results with that tool). And she has a vested interested in a positive outcome.

When someone quotes literature, it is imperative that they understand the underlying methodology and generate their own conclusions. It's also necessary that other people in the field reproduce the same results with other populations.
 
faire_jour said:
Yeah, because hearing children never cry at preschool :roll:
Click to expand...

She talking about forcing them to do things. I've watching our son's preschool. I can watch them from the window. Because I volunteer at the school now and then, I still walk by those classrooms because our son still go to that school (they all start 2 or 3 years old to 5th grade ) , and hardly any kids cry because they were forced to do it. They do it because it is fun. I'm sure there's crying now and then, but crying all the time because they are forced to it, is a different story.

A hearing mother would never put her hearing child to a preschool where there too many upsets and crying. to her, that mean trouble.
 
Last edited:
faire_jour said:
Actually the latest research shows that kids with CI's that are in oral only classrooms end up with better oral language outcomes than those in classrooms that use both....

:io:
Click to expand...

Citation, please. All the research I have seen, and I review it on a daily basis, says the opposite.
 
faire_jour said:
Correct, they are only testing spoken language. But the idea that a child in an ASL enviroment ends up with the same fluency in spoken language as a child in a listening and spoken language setting has been proven untrue, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Then the tests are useless for anything except measuring hearing standards of spoken language. Speaking better does not equate to better educational performance.:roll:
 
Back
Top