Some thoughts?

[dreama]

But this study shows the opposite. Those children in oral only classes do BETTER than the kids with ASL. (in speech)

Again, not discussing MY child.

That just proves the study is biased towards oral education since ANY logic study would show that holding information back NEVER proves good results.

 

[dreama]

Actually, the fastest way to learn a language is doing just that. Immersion in a language is the best way to learn.

Not always. Sometimes people find that method harder to understand. My 6th, 7th and 8th grade french lessons used English to help what language meant. A lot of things were written down which also made it easier for me. I scored 97 per cent in my 8th grade exams. (Although admitatdly we were only tested on our grammar and ability to read and write in french)

The school I moved to in 9th grade with the PHU had a teacher who thought that the method of submerging students would work. Guess what happened to me. I was completely lost and my french actually deteriated.

 

[dreama]

Wow...

Well, I went to Deaf school and graudated there without CI. =/ If it is today you are referred to, well, I think it's a shame.

I totally agreed. That's why what I really don't like CI. If only they had never been invented. The oral only aproach might have been consigned to history books where it belongs.

 

[faire_jour]

Wow...

Well, I went to Deaf school and graudated there without CI. =/ If it is today you are referred to, well, I think it's a shame.

Maybe you misunderstood.

I'm not saying that all kids should get CI's, but a lot will. So, if the Deaf school wants students, it will need to serve CI users.

 

[faire_jour]

I totally agreed. That's why what I really don't like CI. If only they had never been invented. The oral only aproach might have been consigned to history books where it belongs.

This is ridiculously offensive to me. Why would you deny my daughter the gift of hearing? She was born hearing and the malpractice of a doctor took that away. There were oralist long before CI's and they weren't going away. CI's actually make oralism work better! My daughter's therapist has been around for 30 years (she advocates TC, by the way) and she says that before CI's maybe 10% of deaf kids could learn spoken language without ASL, 90% couldn't. Now she says the opposite is true. With CI's 90% can.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Maybe you misunderstood.

I'm not saying that all kids should get CI's, but a lot will. So, if the Deaf school wants students, it will need to serve CI users.

I KNOW you didn't say all kids should get CI or be in oral progarm. I was talked what you are referred to present time.

Peace.

 

[dreama]

This is ridiculously offensive to me. Why would you deny my daughter the gift of hearing? She was born hearing and the malpractice of a doctor took that away. There were oralist long before CI's and they weren't going away. CI's actually make oralism work better! My daughter's therapist has been around for 30 years (she advocates TC, by the way) and she says that before CI's maybe 10% of deaf kids could learn spoken language without ASL, 90% couldn't. Now she says the opposite is true. With CI's 90% can.

I'm sorry. It's just how I feel about the CI. It seems to make parents go all obsessive about speech. And nothing but speech which is NEVER a good thing, because believe it or not. Speech is not all that terribly important compaired to social and mental development or the ability to learn how to express yourself fluently in writing.

When a HOH child is exposed to both speech and signing they gain more self confidence. So when they communicate with the hearing world the hearing people pick up on that. I find the deaf that could sign and speak did BETTER at communicating with the hearing world then the Deaf that communicate with oral only. They have more self confidence.

I find studies like your very upsetting because it convinces parents to withhold signing thus making them less able to communicate then they would otherwise be.

How would you feel if there were studies that said written english impeeded speech?

 

[faire_jour]

I'm sorry. It's just how I feel about the CI. It seems to make parents go all obsessive about speech. And nothing but speech which is NEVER a good thing, because believe it or not. Speech is not all that terribly important compaired to social and mental development or the ability to learn how to express yourself fluently in writing.

When a HOH child is exposed to both speech and signing they gain more self confidence. So when they communicate with the hearing world the hearing people pick up on that. I find the deaf that could sign and speak did BETTER at communicating with the hearing world then the Deaf that communicate with oral only. They have more self confidence.

I find studies like your very upsetting because it convinces parents to withhold signing thus making them less able to communicate then they would otherwise be.

How would you feel if there were studies that said written english impeeded speech?

I don't know. I doubt I would care. I would want her to learn to read and write.

Again, CI's don't cause oralism, that has been around long before they were. I don't think parents are obsessed with speech. I think they are obsessed with language, and they use spoken language, so it can look similar from the outside.

 

[dreama]

I don't know. I doubt I would care. I would want her to learn to read and write.

Again, CI's don't cause oralism, that has been around long before they were. I don't think parents are obsessed with speech. I think they are obsessed with language, and they use spoken language, so it can look similar from the outside.

Well using several methods such as ASL, cued speech and written english is the best way to improve a child's language as in the full tool box apoach.

Yes oralism has been around before CI but people were starting to see what damage it did to the profoundly deaf kids who couldn't master speech no matter how often a person tried to teach them. They noticed that only HOH and a few very deaf kids were managing to pick up on spoken language so then comes the CI which put all children in the categree where they were capable of being 'oral successess'.

As Me, Shel, Bott, Jiro, Babyblue and others try to tell you we may have managed as 'oral successes' growing up but we missed not having sign language.

 

[deafdyke]

Well it just says that speech inteligbilty is better. Someone could learn to pronounce perfectly words in a foriegn language, but it doesn't mean that their language is better.
Besides, I think the speech intellibilty might be more due to the "private school effect" Like they may be graduates of the oral schools or programs where the town is wealthy, so they could have had more access to really talented speech therapists.

 

[shel90]

If it was so true then many of my deaf friends (who have no CIs) who went to Deaf schools wouldnt have any speech skills whatsover but since many of them do

Then again, some people do not care about that fact and choose to ignore it.

 

[shel90]

This is what gets my goat. A lot of people wants to blame the language delays on ASL. The delay is that the child could not hear, and did not have access to ANY form of language.

I know..:roll:

 

[shel90]

I totally agreed. That's why what I really don't like CI. If only they had never been invented. The oral only aproach might have been consigned to history books where it belongs.

My stepmom couldnt believe that in today's times, ASL is still being denied to a lot of deaf children..she thought that was back in the old days when people didnt have a good understanding of ASL. She said that was "BS!" about that view.

 

[shel90]

I'm sorry. It's just how I feel about the CI. It seems to make parents go all obsessive about speech. And nothing but speech which is NEVER a good thing, because believe it or not. Speech is not all that terribly important compaired to social and mental development or the ability to learn how to express yourself fluently in writing.

When a HOH child is exposed to both speech and signing they gain more self confidence. So when they communicate with the hearing world the hearing people pick up on that. I find the deaf that could sign and speak did BETTER at communicating with the hearing world then the Deaf that communicate with oral only. They have more self confidence.

I find studies like your very upsetting because it convinces parents to withhold signing thus making them less able to communicate then they would otherwise be.

How would you feel if there were studies that said written english impeeded speech?

and that obsession is seriously getting old...very old.

 

[shel90]

I'll say, if I'm guilty of not reading the article -- It's because I only read the abstract and conclusions. That's what I do when I want to speed read professional findings for just the cliff notes only.

The study basically concluded what I posted above, in their own words. In other words, "From the results we give, we cannot conclude anything about children with cochlear implants and their speech potential. But here is what we think: ---"

As for a conclusion about ASL or oral speech hindrance possibilities will have to be drawn in the art of opinions that vary from person to person, and possibly culture to culture until we can find a study that directly focuses on it.

That makes the article invalid.

 

[shel90]

But this study shows the opposite. Those children in oral only classes do BETTER than the kids with ASL. (in speech)

Again, not discussing MY child.

Oh brother...comparing again, are we?

Oral deaf kids are better than signing kids, oral deaf kids are more normal than signing kids and so on and so on..

why do we need to compare children like that? is the goal of these audists to put down deaf signers or what?

 

[Babyblue]

Maybe you misunderstood.

I'm not saying that all kids should get CI's, but a lot will. So, if the Deaf school wants students, it will need to serve CI users.

Deaf schools served me.

I am HOH and grew up orally. I went to a deaf school still took Speech Therapy while attending to a deaf school. And Learned to sign ASL


Just curious. What is your expectation of a Deaf School towards CI users??

 

[Berry]

Conclusions Higher speech intelligibility scores in 8- to 9-year-old congenitally deafened cochlear implant recipients were associated with educational settings that emphasize oral communication development. Educational environments that incorporate exposure to normal-hearing peers were also associated with higher speech intelligibility scores at 8 to 9 years of age.

.

Cultural note: This is expected to be well received in a society where the greatest respect and the surest reward goes to the salesman. Not the doctor, the professor, the CEO, or even the football player, -- The salesman.

In this society the greater one's integration into the realm of the slick talker the greater the status. The high tech mecca of this group is "motivational research" which tells their clients to charge 98 cents rather than a dollar and to package their products in red and use oval shapes in their design. These things move the product faster at a better profit.

However those of us whose chosen cultural views veer toward the humanities find the salesman to be an empty husk of manipulation with no healthy corn inside -- Who has sold the would be kernels of his soul for thirty-six and one quarter shekels.

Hearing or Deaf or "Other" I want my child to succeed as a human being in their own right -- Not to compete in a cultural norm I find no value in.

 

[jillio]

Speech intelligiblity is one part of spoken language development, so it is valid to say that perhaps the idea that sign does not interfere in any way with spoken language is at least questionable.

It was questionable 50 years ago. It has since been disproven.

 

[jillio]

Not with the research, but with their opinion? Ok.

Our conclusions, not opinions, are based on solid research. Research done by educators and psychologists that have spent their entire lives researching the topic of language acquisition in deaf children, not a single study with a bias.

The research I presented in this thread is longitudinal research...much more valid and reliable to this topic than a sinlge study that is time limited.