Seeing Voices

[jillio]

"Oralism and the suprression of sign have resulted in adramatic deterioration inthe educational achievement of deaf children and the deaf in general." (p.25).
"Hans Furth, a psychologist whose work is concerned with the cognition of the deaf, states that the deaf do as well as the hearing on tasks that measure intelligence without the need for acquired information.He argues that the congentially deaf suffer from 'information deprivation'. There are a number of reasons for this. First, they are less exposed to the "incidintal " learning that takes place out of school--for example the buzzof conversation that is the background to ordinary life; to television, unless it is captioned, etc. Second, the content of deaf education is meager compared to that of hearing children: so much time is spent teaching deaf children speech--one must envisage between five and eight years of intensive tutoring--that there is little time for transmitting inforamtion, culture, comples skills, or anything else." (p. 25).[/B]"Once signing is learned--and it may be fluent by three years of age--then all else may follow: a frree intercourse of minds, a free flow of information, the acquisitionof reading and writing, and perhaps that of speech. There is no evidence that signing inhibits the acquisition of speech. Indeed, the reverse is probably so."(p.28).

"It is clear that thought and language have quite separate (biological) origins, that the world is examined and mapped and responded to long before the advent of languge, that there is a huge range of thinking--in animals, in infants--long before the advent of language. (No one has examined this more beautifully than Piaget). A human being is not mindless or mentally deficient without language, but he is severely resticted in the range of his thoughts, confined, in effect,to an immedicate, small world." (p.34).

"Asking questions of deaf children about what they just read made me aware that many have a remarkable linguistic difienciency. They do not possess the linguistic devise provided by the question forms. It is not that they do not know the answer to the question, it is that they do not understand the question." (p.40).

"If some deaf children do so much better than others, despite the same profound deafness, then it cannot be deafness,as such, that is producing problems, but rather, consequences of deafness--in particular, difficulties or distortions in communicative life form the start. It is not thier innate linguistic or intellectual powers that are at fault, but rather obstructions to the normal development of these."

"Poor dialogue, communicationd defeat, so Schlesinger feels, leads not only to intellectual constriction but to timidity and passivity; creative dialogue, a rich communicative interchange in childhood, awakens the imaginationand the mind, leads to aself sufficiency, a boldness, a playfullness, a humor, that will be with the person for the rest of his life." (p.55).



Sacks, O. (2000). Seeing voices: A journey into the deaf world. Random House, N.Y.

More support and evidence for the use of early sign in the intellectual and cognitive development of profoundly deaf children. Any thoughts?

 

[Cloggy]

"........Sacks, O. (2000). Seeing voices: A journey into the deaf world. Random House, N.Y.

More support and evidence for the use of early sign in the intellectual and cognitive development of profoundly deaf children. Any thoughts?

Excellent choice...
Been a while since I read it.
Actuall, I read the book before Lotte was born... amazing how these things work sometimes..
I read it again, off course, but even that has been a while..

What I do remember is that I did not know about CI when Lotte was born, and because of this book, books by Harlan lane etc. we started sign language when we found out Lotte was deaf.
This also means that CI was not in the book by Sacks, but I can be wrong.

Reading your post, I will put down some thoughts..

There are a number of reasons for this. First, they are less exposed to the "incidintal " learning that takes place out of school--for example the buzzof conversation that is the background to ordinary life; to television

This is somehing we realised from the start (I am talking about my own experiences) and very obvious when Lotte could not hear. Over the years, this has become less, but is still there..
We need to explain more to her that would be "normal" for a 5-year old. Lack of communication in the time before signlanguage and CI have probably contributed to that.

There is no evidence that signing inhibits the acquisition of speech. Indeed, the reverse is probably so.

I truly believe that. I have a feeling that cued speech can do the same. Different methods to achieve the same goal.

Regarding your comment:
"More support and evidence for the use of early sign in the intellectual and cognitive development of profoundly deaf children. Any thoughts?"

I would like to say:
More support and evidence for the use of early sign and perhaps early use of CI in the intellectual and cognitive development of profoundly deaf children.

But I will stop here and read the book first..

Thanks Jillio.!

 

[shel90]

I see all these characteristics in the students who I have worked with in the 5 years I have been teaching and those at the deaf ed program when I was an aide. Like I have mentioned before, those who got referred from the oral programs are the ones who struggle with simple concepts and creativity than the ones who started at our school or had exposure to ASL since infants. Those kids who r deprived or have been deprived of language tend to imitate the linguistic smarter kids even at 8,9, or older. It is like they can't create their own thoughts when making art, drawing or telling stories. It is like there is absulotely no creative development occurring so I wonder if that is lost for good?

That is why I am totally against the oral-only approach for young dhh children.

 

[jillio]

Excellent choice...
Been a while since I read it.
Actuall, I read the book before Lotte was born... amazing how these things work sometimes..
I read it again, off course, but even that has been a while..

What I do remember is that I did not know about CI when Lotte was born, and because of this book, books by Harlan lane etc. we started sign language when we found out Lotte was deaf.
This also means that CI was not in the book by Sacks, but I can be wrong.

Reading your post, I will put down some thoughts..
This is somehing we realised from the start (I am talking about my own experiences) and very obvious when Lotte could not hear. Over the years, this has become less, but is still there..
We need to explain more to her that would be "normal" for a 5-year old. Lack of communication in the time before signlanguage and CI have probably contributed to that.

I truly believe that. I have a feeling that cued speech can do the same. Different methods to achieve the same goal.

But I will stop here and read the book first..

Thanks Jillio.!

You are welcome, cloggy. And to answer the question regarding CS...first, it is not a language. Second, it does nothing to increase those incidental learning situations that are critical. And, please keep in mind that I have never said that early implantation could not be a useful tool. What I have said, is that because the level of sound perception and discrimination is not equal to that of natural hearing, there are still gaps inthe CI implanted child that need to ber addressed, andthat these gaps cannot be addressed throughthe use of oral language alone.

 

[jillio]

I see all these characteristics in the students who I have worked with in the 5 years I have been teaching and those at the deaf ed program when I was an aide. Like I have mentioned before, those who got referred from the oral programs are the ones who struggle with simple concepts and creativity than the ones who started at our school or had exposure to ASL since infants. Those kids who r deprived or have been deprived of language tend to imitate the linguistic smarter kids even at 8,9, or older. It is like they can't create their own thoughts when making art, drawing or telling stories. It is like there is absulotely no creative development occurring so I wonder if that is lost for good?

That is why I am totally against the oral-only approach for young dhh children.

Its not lost for good, but it certainly is impaired. And the longer period of time that hte deprivation continues, the greater the long term effects.

 

[Cloggy]

You are welcome, cloggy. And to answer the question regarding CS...first, it is not a language. ......

Well, CS not a language...

Second, it does nothing to increase those incidental learning situations that are critical.

being able to hear would definitely do something to increase those incidental learning situations that are critical!

 

[jillio]

Well, CS not a language...

being able to hear would definitely do something to increase those incidental learning situations that are critical!

Yes, provided what is heard in an incidental situation is meaningful. But, yes, that is exactly why I say that CI can be a useful tool. As can a hearing aid or an FM system. All I am saying is that aided, through whatever means, is not natural hearing,and therefore, gaps remain that need to be addressed. But it isn't necessary to bring this all back to a discussion of CI only. While CI has its place inthe discussion of educational practices, langauge acquisition issues, and cognitive processing in deaf children, it is not the only issue.

 

[Cloggy]

Yes, provided what is heard in an incidental situation is meaningful. But, yes, that is exactly why I say that CI can be a useful tool. As can a hearing aid or an FM system. All I am saying is that aided, through whatever means, is not natural hearing,and therefore, gaps remain that need to be addressed. But it isn't necessary to bring this all back to a discussion of CI only. While CI has its place inthe discussion of educational practices, langauge acquisition issues, and cognitive processing in deaf children, it is not the only issue.

In the interest of discussing a topic... why would Ci not be an issue..??

BTW, just realised... I have the 1991 (paperback) edition... is there much difference.?

 

[jillio]

In the interest of discussing a topic... why would Ci not be an issue..??

BTW, just realised... I have the 1991 (paperback) edition... is there much difference.?

Couple of changes, but nothing really significant.

CI is not an issue, becasue a CI child, by your own admission, is not a hearing child. Even with CI, most children function, at best, as HOH. An HOH child continues to have gaps and differences in processing that any deaf/HOH child has. CI does not fully compensate for the liguistic and literacy deficits that deaf kids experience. Therefore, as the gaps continue to exist, and are not fully compensated for, they must be addressed in the CI population, as well. So it matters not whether a child is implanted or not implanted...the language problems and the literacy problems remain and therefore must be addressed in the light of CI not being the issue. Only if implantation alone could remove these deficits would it be a valid issue for increasing literacy rates and language deprivation. It might help, but it doesn't solve, the problems. In that vein, CI needs to be disucussed from the perspective of being used in conjuction with sign and speech as the method to improve the academic functioning of a deaf child.

That is where all of these topics seem to diverge. When the attitude is brought inthat, because a child has a CI, that alone should provide the circumstances that allow them to function from a language base,a nd an academic base that is equalto a hearing child. That simply has not been supported. So when people like shel and I say that it is a useful tool, but the academic problems are not being solved by CI and a return to oralism, we are accused of being anti-CI. Can you see now that we are not anti-CI at all. If that is a choice a parent has made,then so be it. But that choice is not the end of the road. Other things must also be considered, and if the CI child is to receive the most benefit from the increased sound perception received, then they must have all of the issues addressed from a language and an academic standpoint. We are simply saying that CI is not justification for a return to strict oralism based on the evidence that the majority of CI children function as HOH and continue to experience academic and language difficulties.

All deaf children, whether assisted with CI, HA, or not assisted at all, depite the dB. levels of loss indicated on an audiogram, have certain deficits in common, and the neccessity of addressing these deficts is paramount if we are going to provide deaf children with an adequate education and a rich linguistic environment.

 

[Cloggy]

Couple of changes, but nothing really significant.

CI is not an issue, becasue a CI child, by your own admission, is not a hearing child.

Correct, it's a deaf child that can hear.

Even with CI, most children function, at best, as HOH. An HOH child continues to have gaps and differences in processing that any deaf/HOH child has.

Not deaf child... HOH.. yes

CI does not fully compensate for the liguistic and literacy deficits that deaf kids experience. Therefore, as the gaps continue to exist, and are not fully compensated for, they must be addressed in the CI population, as well. So it matters not whether a child is implanted or not implanted...the language problems and the literacy problems remain and therefore must be addressed in the light of CI not being the issue. Only if implantation alone could remove these deficits would it be a valid issue for increasing literacy rates and language deprivation. It might help, but it doesn't solve, the problems. In that vein, CI needs to be disucussed from the perspective of being used in conjuction with sign and speech as the method to improve the academic functioning of a deaf child.

It is allways discussed in that perspective, and evaluated if additional support is needed. When oral communication is going well, and there is no need for additional support - that's should be fine as well. Signlanguage because "a deaf child should be Deaf" is nonsense.

That is where all of these topics seem to diverge. When the attitude is brought inthat, because a child has a CI, that alone should provide the circumstances that allow them to function from a language base,a nd an academic base that is equalto a hearing child. That simply has not been supported. So when people like shel and I say that it is a useful tool, but the academic problems are not being solved by CI and a return to oralism, we are accused of being anti-CI. Can you see now that we are not anti-CI at all.

If that was directed at me - I have never said that.

If that is a choice a parent has made,then so be it. But that choice is not the end of the road. Other things must also be considered, and if the CI child is to receive the most benefit from the increased sound perception received, then they must have all of the issues addressed from a language and an academic standpoint. We are simply saying that CI is not justification for a return to strict oralism based on the evidence that the majority of CI children function as HOH and continue to experience academic and language difficulties.

Experiences based on what kind of children... I recall asking about the type of children but never got a straight answer. You see one end of the spectrum. I see the other end. But for some reason, you cannot see the other end.

All deaf children, whether assisted with CI, HA, or not assisted at all, depite the dB. levels of loss indicated on an audiogram, have certain deficits in common, and the neccessity of addressing these deficts is paramount if we are going to provide deaf children with an adequate education and a rich linguistic environment.

Everything has to be done to give the child the best possibilities. For us Ci is part of that, and speech therapy, perhaps even cued speech in the future. Sign language was part of it, and in the future might become part of it again. At the moment, it is hardly used.

 

[jillio]

Correct, it's a deaf child that can hear.Not deaf child... HOH.. yes

There it is cloggy. A deaf child that can hear, not a hearing child. HOH is not hearing. It is HOH.

It is allways discussed in that perspective, and evaluated if additional support is needed. When oral communication is going well, and there is no need for additional support - that's should be fine as well.
But as you said before, a deaf child with CI is HOH. Therefore, there will always be gaps in oral language communications based just on that fact alone. And those gaps that aren't so evident when a child is 3 or 4...although by your own admission, Lotte still suffers some delays....become very evident as that child grows. Those gaps are the result of the earlier deficits not having been addressed because since the child wa beginningto speak, it wa assumed that she was getting everything she needed through oral language.

You might want to check out the thread Another View of Oralism that I posted in this ed forum yesterday. It, too is relevent to the discussion.
Signlanguage because "a deaf child should be Deaf" is nonsense.

But that is not my premise. I do not reccommend sign language for a deaf child because they should be Deaf. I support sign language for a deaf child becasue he/she is deaf.
If that was directed at me - I have never said that.

It wasn't directed at you. Please, please stop taking everything that is said so personally.
Experiences based on what kind of children... I recall asking about the type of children but never got a straight answer. You see one end of the spectrum. I see the other end. But for some reason, you cannot see the other end.

No cloggy, I see both ends, as well as the middle. I do not advise against teaching a deaf child oral skills. Nor do I advise against implantation. I have said time and agian that implantation is a person decision, and have cited the personal reasons for my own decision regarding my own child. That is far different from advising against implantation. What I do advise, however, is that even a CI child not be restricted to a strictly oral environment based onthe fact that they are implanted. Even CI children perform at a higher academic level when exposed to sign and speech. You are mistaking amy postition of the use of both as the other end of the spectrum, when in fact, I am in the moderate position.

Everything has to be done to give the child the best possibilities. For us Ci is part of that, and speech therapy, perhaps even cued speech in the future. Sign language was part of it, and in the future might become part of it again. At the moment, it is hardly used.

And I agree with you totally that everything must be done. For you CI was a part of it. And that is the issue. It is a part of it. There are others, however, who stop there, and that is what I object to. Part, not whole. Why? Because a CI child is not a hearing child. They are children who can hear at varying levels, but many deaf children without any assistive devise can hear at some levels. They are still not hearing children, but only children who hear some.

 

[jillio]

Oh, yeah! Check out the thread, "Another View of Oralism".....it is relevent to this discussion as well. I started it yesterday after this one got off the ground.

 

[Cloggy]

.... They are still not hearing children, but only children who hear some.[/B]

Wrong... that might have been true 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, they can hear a lot... and with bi-lateral CI, it's even better.

But then again... I'm just talking from experience..

 

[deafskeptic]

If the posts that Jackie has made about her children were any example, I'd say there are still gaps even though CIs are a big improvement over HAs. The fact that she has to pre-teach and post-teach her children is proof of that. You don't need to put so much effort into helping your children with homework if they're hearing. I've no clue if they have single CIs or bilateral. Unless I'm mistaken, her children's implantations took place within a ten year time frame.

 

[jillio]

Wrong... that might have been true 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, they can hear a lot... and with bi-lateral CI, it's even better.

But then again... I'm just talking from experience..

Cloggy,

Are you saying that children implanted with CI hear identically to a child the same age who was born hearing?

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy,

Are you saying that children implanted with CI hear identically to a child the same age who was born hearing?

Interesting.... in a sad way....

I said: "Nowadays, they can hear a lot... and with bi-lateral CI, it's even better. ............"

and you have to distort that to "hear identically to a child the same age who was born hearing" , twisting it around to something I never said..

Why do you do that? What's the problem with accepting that I can see and hear that my daughter hears a lot.??
Have I said she hears the same as a child born hearing? NO. So why do you need to force that upon me.?
In a way, that is your MO... When you don't like something, you take it out of context and twist it around in order to put labels on the other person...

 

[jillio]

Interesting.... in a sad way....

I said: "Nowadays, they can hear a lot... and with bi-lateral CI, it's even better. ............"

and you have to distort that to "hear identically to a child the same age who was born hearing" , twisting it around to something I never said..

Why do you do that? What's the problem with accepting that I can see and hear that my daughter hears a lot.??
Have I said she hears the same as a child born hearing? NO. So why do you need to force that upon me.?
In a way, that is your MO... When you don't like something, you take it out of context and twist it around in order to put labels on the other person...

Because,cloggy, when I saud that CI children are not hearing children, but children who can hear some, you blatantly said I was wrong. So you are saying that they are hearing children through your statement. I am no twisting your words at all. They are exactly as you typed them.

A child either hears some, making them HOH, or they are hearing, one or the other. They can't be both.

 

[Cloggy]

Because,cloggy, when I saud that CI children are not hearing children, but children who can hear some, you blatantly said I was wrong. So you are saying that they are hearing children through your statement. I am no twisting your words at all. They are exactly as you typed them.

A child either hears some, making them HOH, or they are hearing, one or the other. They can't be both.

Let's see:

Wrong... that might have been true 10-15 years ago. Nowadays, they can hear a lot... and with bi-lateral CI, it's even better.....

Cloggy, Are you saying that children implanted with CI hear identically to a child the same age who was born hearing?

Again, interesting how in your head my statement "they can hear a lot" becomes ".... they hear like children born hearing."..

I did say you were wrong, because, let's face it.... you are.
But to project a statement like "...they are hearing children through your statement" on me... (or was it an insult, and I didn't get it?)

Don't you see yourself that your tunnelvision is creating all kind of wrong interpretations?

 

[jillio]

Let's see:



Again, interesting how in your head my statement "they can hear a lot" becomes ".... they hear like children born hearing."..

I did say you were wrong, because, let's face it.... you are.
But to project a statement like "...they are hearing children through your statement" on me... (or was it an insult, and I didn't get it?)

Don't you see yourself that your tunnelvision is creating all kind of wrong interpretations?

Cloggy,

I am not creating hte misinterpretations. You are simply misinterpreting what is said. A child cannot be hearing and HOH at the same time. Hearing some does not make them hearing, it makes them HOH. There is no other way to state it.

When I said that implanted children were not hearing children, but children who hear some, your reply, in post # 13 was, "Wrong....that may have been true 10-15 years ago." In saying that statement is wrong, you are saying, in effect, that implanted children are hearing children.

However, I think what you intended was to say "Right." Implanted children hear some, and therefore are HOH children. And if they are HOH children, they continue to experience the same language acqusiition difficulties and educational difficulties as any other HOH child.

And, we are not going ot turn this into an argument about CI. This topic is addressing the needs deaf children in educational environment.

 

[rockdrummer]

So I followed this and you guys are just splitting hairs. Get a room and get over it already. Hears alot is not saying hearing just as Hard of hearing is not saying hears alot but they both mean that there is some hearing. Geeze!!!