Start with spoken language or ASL?

[Daredevel7]

The kid can still learn English...my son's deaf 3 year old friend is learning how to read and she has no oral skills. She can read her and her brother's name anywhere and she already has established a theory of mind which is rare for children that age. Now, her parents are taking her to speech therapy to see if she will develop oral skills.

I saw a picture of her in another thread. So cute. That's great news about her. I think what I'm worried about is the resistance of developing oral skills when you already have a nice language foundation in ASL and reading. Why fix something that isn't broken right? (And I'm not just guessing. Here is an example of a study that showed that better oral skills are found in 100% oral environment rather than in environments that are both oral and ASL: The Development of Spoken Language in Deaf Children: Explaining the Unexplained Variance -- Musselman and Kircaali-Iftar 1 (2): 108 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education) And before people throw sources at me that shows evidence that ASL facilitates BOTH spoken English and language skills, remember I am talking about a case where the child was capable of developing spoken English without ASL in the first place. In the case where the child has a difficult time with spoken English, then I am 100% for ASL, SEE, whatever it takes to build the language of the child, because I do agree with you guys in the sense that language (albeit spoken English, ASL, SEE, Klingon) is important in the early stages.

 

[Daredevel7]

No, I said that time should not be sacrificed in acquiring language to see if a deaf child is able to develop speech.

What makes you think that in the process of checking if the child is able to develop speech, no language is acquired? I mean it can be as simple as holding back juice and saying "Juice" over and over until the child says something resembling juice. Bam whammo. You just taught the child how to say juice or at least similar to juice. My speech therapy was actually taped, so it was very interesting to see how speech therapy can be done for someone who gains vocabulary in only speech.

 

[sirena rossa]

I absolutely agree there's no one size fits all. My son had informed me today that there's a cochlear implant student at his school and she was telling everyone a story about the deaf community, how they had criticize her parents at every turn just because for one she has a cochlear implant, two she is in a public school with all the hearing students. and when my son told me this, I told him there are some deaf people in the deaf community are like that way, but I'm not. Sometimes I feel so ashamed being a part of the deaf community. I never understand why some deaf people have to be so cruel. If their daughter is doing great at where she's at, leave them alone.. U know?

awww man, i hope that girl doesn't let those comments get her down! and more so, i hope her parents don't let the criticism get to them either!
I was in a hearing school all my life and I turned out just fine. If their daughter is doing well and excelling and is happy, then props to those parents for making that choice. as long as little girl is happy, then thats what matters.

 

[shel90]

What makes you think that in the process of checking if the child is able to develop speech, no language is acquired? I mean it can be as simple as holding back juice and saying "Juice" over and over until the child says something resembling juice. Bam whammo. You just taught the child how to say juice or at least similar to juice. My speech therapy was actually taped, so it was very interesting to see how speech therapy can be done for someone who gains vocabulary in only speech.

Yea, speaking it clearly still doesnt solve the problems on the recieving end. If someone else was telling someone about juice while the child was in the room, the child would have missed it due to not being able nor having enough of a strong language foundation to lipread everything the person is saying about the juice to the other person. Maybe a word here or there but a lot of gaps. That's where the biggest issue lies with deaf children acquiring language via the spoken form. Even if the child has established a strong language foundation, so many things still get missed in the educational setting putting the child at a disadvantage to his/her hearing peers. That is why I believe in providing a BiBi environment for the children so they dont miss out on anything constantly and have to work at keeping up. The educational setting should be like that for deaf children.

For the child to have a better chance of building a strong L1 language thru full access, a visual language should be provided.

 

[shel90]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that you should not sacrifice linguistic input simply to see if a child is capable of developing spoken language. This serves to create delays that are not just language based, but affect cognitive functioning and social functioning on many levels. In fact, it does very real harm to a child to restrict their linguistic environment, and I object to that harmful situation being created for deaf children based on nothing more than an audist preference for spoken language.

To all...

Pls take note of the bolded comment...that is where the children are put at risks for language/cognitive/literacy delays...

Just because one can pronounce something perfectly doesnt mean they are getting the full linguistic input like hearing kids get from spoken language.

 

[Daredevel7]

Yea, speaking it clearly still doesnt solve the problems on the recieving end. If someone else was telling someone about juice while the child was in the room, the child would have missed it due to not being able nor having enough of a strong language foundation to lipread everything the person is saying about the juice to the other person. Maybe a word here or there but a lot of gaps. That's where the biggest issue lies with deaf children acquiring language via the spoken form. Even if the child has established a strong language foundation, so many things still get missed in the educational setting putting the child at a disadvantage to his/her hearing peers. That is why I believe in providing a BiBi environment for the children so they dont miss out on anything constantly and have to work at keeping up. The educational setting should be like that for deaf children.

For the child to have a better chance of building a strong L1 language thru full access, a visual language should be provided.

Responding to the bold statement above, the child would still miss it if the child is not directly looking at the person speaking (either spoken English or ASL). Also, you're talking about educational setting, implying school, thus older age. I'm definitely not saying oral ONLY forever. In fact, you've convinced me that BiBi environment seems to be a wonderful choice for children. I'm talking about the very first thing you do in terms of starting teaching language to babies/toddlers. I am just not convinced that learning ASL first will not affect the future learning of spoken English in the case of a child who has strong lipreading skills at 18 months old.

 

[frogsign]

One problem with waiting to see if the child will acquire speech is that speech comes from hearing and much of it is learned passively or by mimicking what is heard. Please note that I do not favor one method over another, but I can see the wisdom in giving the child a visual source language, as well as the oral. I do believe it depends on the parents being willing to work very hard with the child, much harder than they would have to work with a hearing child, regardless of the method(s) they choose.

 

[shel90]

Responding to the bold statement above, the child would still miss it if the child is not directly looking at the person speaking (either spoken English or ASL). Also, you're talking about educational setting, implying school, thus older age. I'm definitely not saying oral ONLY forever. In fact, you've convinced me that BiBi environment seems to be a wonderful choice for children. I'm talking about the very first thing you do in terms of starting teaching language to babies/toddlers. I am just not convinced that learning ASL first will not affect the future learning of spoken English in the case of a child who has strong lipreading skills at 18 months old.

Yea, I am not against exposing deaf children to developing oral skills as well which is why I believe strongly in the BiBi approach.

I mean if the child is in the room watching two people converse about juice and relying on lipreading, more likely parts of the conversation will be missed while with ASL, it wouldnt and the child can see language being used. Hope that makes sense.

 

[shel90]

One problem with waiting to see if the child will acquire speech is that speech comes from hearing and much of it is learned passively or by mimicking what is heard. Please note that I do not favor one method over another, but I can see the wisdom in giving the child a visual source language, as well as the oral. I do believe it depends on the parents being willing to work very hard with the child, much harder than they would have to work with a hearing child, regardless of the method(s) they choose.

Exactly and that's where most of my concerns lie with.

 

[web730]

The differences of pre-linguistics and post-linguistics are huge so it's the reason why we stress ASL to start as the pre-linguistic language for the deaf children as the starters.

Those under age 3-4 who starts learning language is pre-linguistics... anyone starts after age 5 considered to be post-linguistic.

1. Early children learns much faster than anyone in the latter ages, basically. That is a fact... especially those on pre and post linguistics.

2. For the deaf children; it's much easier for the deaf children's eyes to absorb language skills than it would be with deaf children's ears by hearing with CIs or HAs... simply because their eyes are 100% function available to use while their ears are just between 0%-70% function... most are below 30% function, really.

3. Another interesting fact... hearing children who learned ASL the first language before their age 3 and school age boosted their English language skills than other hearing children who didn't learn ASL the first thing. Yet it shouldn't be a surprise stat because their eyes are 100% function available to use so they can learn ASL either.

Remember that it takes 2-4 years for the hearing children to speak English well enough so imagine how longer it take the deaf children to learn speak and hear before learning the English language (written especially).

I'm sure that Jillio and/or Shel90 could add something more about this linguistic thing since I'm no educator or expert in any of that. lol

 

[Daredevel7]

3. Another interesting fact... hearing children who learned ASL the first language before their age 3 and school age boosted their English language skills than other hearing children who didn't learn ASL the first thing. Yet it shouldn't be a surprise stat because their eyes are 100% function available to use so they can learn ASL either.

Remember that it takes 2-4 years for the hearing children to speak English well enough so imagine how longer it take the deaf children to learn speak and hear before learning the English language (written especially).

The problem with "facts" is that they can be interpreted in SO many ways. For example, you interpreted your 3) fact as "If you learn ASL, you gain so much more vocabulary", whereas the fact can also be interpreted as "If a child has the capability to learn ASL even before speaking, chances that his language skills will be very high." So... not very convincing to me.

Also, it seems that the notion of a deaf child learning to speak at the same rate as a hearing child is impossible, which would explain a lot of people's responses in this thread. I am saying, even though it may not be the norm, I have personally experienced AND personally known at least 2 other people (not to mention a few who have commented in this thread) who have reached language skills (both orally and written) by kindergarten by speech only.

 

[shel90]

The problem with "facts" is that they can be interpreted in SO many ways. For example, you interpreted your 3) fact as "If you learn ASL, you gain so much more vocabulary", whereas the fact can also be interpreted as "If a child has the capability to learn ASL even before speaking, chances that his language skills will be very high." So... not very convincing to me.

Also, it seems that the notion of a deaf child learning to speak at the same rate as a hearing child is impossible, which would explain a lot of people's responses in this thread. I am saying, even though it may not be the norm, I have personally experienced AND personally known at least 2 other people (not to mention a few who have commented in this thread) who have reached language skills (both orally and written) by kindergarten by speech only.

I did too but I was labeled as socially immature, unable to process complex thoughts, and a few others and those skills were delayed until I was in high school.

 

[Hermes]

I did too but I was labeled as socially immature, unable to process complex thoughts, and a few others and those skills were delayed until I was in high school.

I am not adding much to this thread since you all know more than I do but I am reading it all.. I would like to ask a question at this point. How much of this is due to not so good teachers, unhelpful friends and discouraging environment , and how much of it is related to improving oral skills first?

-

 

[jillio]

What makes you think that in the process of checking if the child is able to develop speech, no language is acquired? I mean it can be as simple as holding back juice and saying "Juice" over and over until the child says something resembling juice. Bam whammo. You just taught the child how to say juice or at least similar to juice. My speech therapy was actually taped, so it was very interesting to see how speech therapy can be done for someone who gains vocabulary in only speech.

Because in the process of checking, you are denying the child exposure to language in a mode that is available to them. You sacrifice incidental exposure to language for directed instruction in speech if you are restricting that child to an oral only environment to wait for speech to develop.

No one here has said that a child should not be provided speech therapy. No one has said a child should not be provided with the opportunity to develop oral skills if they are capable of doing so. What I have said, and many others as well, is that you cannot do so at the expense of linguistic exposure in a mode that will allow that child to acquire language on a proper developmental schedule.

There is nothing wrong with a deaf child learning to speak. However, there is something wrong when speech becomes so much of a focus that the linguistic environment of that child is restricted and their language acquisition and development is delayed as a result.

 

[shel90]

I am not adding much to this thread since you all know more than I do but I am reading it all.. I would like to ask a question at this point. How much of this is due to not so good teachers, unhelpful friends and discouraging environment , and how much of it is related to improving oral skills first?

-

I dont know but I do remember my mom telling me not to act that way around my friends or that I behaved what I read from the books I read. Now, with the knowledge I have about socio-emotional issues, my mom was right but instead of recognizing the fact that it was due to me not being able to interact to my full potential, she implied that I was the one with the problem not the environment itself.

 

[web730]

The problem with "facts" is that they can be interpreted in SO many ways. For example, you interpreted your 3) fact as "If you learn ASL, you gain so much more vocabulary", whereas the fact can also be interpreted as "If a child has the capability to learn ASL even before speaking, chances that his language skills will be very high." So... not very convincing to me.

Also, it seems that the notion of a deaf child learning to speak at the same rate as a hearing child is impossible, which would explain a lot of people's responses in this thread. I am saying, even though it may not be the norm, I have personally experienced AND personally known at least 2 other people (not to mention a few who have commented in this thread) who have reached language skills (both orally and written) by kindergarten by speech only.

Only two people that you knew of so you suddenly assume it's the norm with others? Come on!

Have you attended to a deaf or mainstream school or university?

Have you noticed of others there in case you attended both?

I have seen many differences amongst deaf, mainstream, and other kind of students by attending both deaf school, NTID, and Gallaudet university... I attended a mainstream school for three years as a pre-teen in Texas.

Not only that but read resources and heard of other teachers' experiences that do tell a lot. Few of them deaf teachers are my close friends. We talked some length of time about the stuff as well.

So it told others and me plenty that it proved ASL (BiBi) works the best as the early intervention tool so far.

As you should have noticed that most AD posters agree the same thing except for the few. Yet it's not enough to count to be fair enough. If those few continue to disagree, you're free to do so but it won't change my or other ASL supporters' opinions, however.

 

[jillio]

The problem with "facts" is that they can be interpreted in SO many ways. For example, you interpreted your 3) fact as "If you learn ASL, you gain so much more vocabulary", whereas the fact can also be interpreted as "If a child has the capability to learn ASL even before speaking, chances that his language skills will be very high." So... not very convincing to me.

Also, it seems that the notion of a deaf child learning to speak at the same rate as a hearing child is impossible, which would explain a lot of people's responses in this thread. I am saying, even though it may not be the norm, I have personally experienced AND personally known at least 2 other people (not to mention a few who have commented in this thread) who have reached language skills (both orally and written) by kindergarten by speech only.

Reached language skills, or reached developmentally appropriate language skills including the cognitive processes that are dependent upon internalization of language in infancy?

 

[jillio]

I am not adding much to this thread since you all know more than I do but I am reading it all.. I would like to ask a question at this point. How much of this is due to not so good teachers, unhelpful friends and discouraging environment , and how much of it is related to improving oral skills first?

-

The environment certainly cannot be discounted in any discussion of this nature. But, inherently, an environment where a child is struggling to communicate is discouraging. A deaf child in an oral only environment struggles not just to make their needs known, but to understand the behaviors, the needs, the desires of others in the environment. They struggle to discuss complex thoughts, and they are unable to play with language that fosters critical thinking skills. Yes, I would consider that environment to be very discouraging.

 

[jillio]

Only two people that you knew of so you suddenly assume it's the norm with others? Come on!

Have you attended to a deaf or mainstream school or university?

Have you noticed of others there in case you attended both?

I have seen many differences amongst deaf, mainstream, and other kind of students by attending both deaf school, NTID, and Gallaudet university... I attended a mainstream school for three years as a pre-teen in Texas.

Not only that but read resources and heard of other teachers' experiences that do tell a lot. Few of them deaf teachers are my close friends. We talked some length of time about the stuff as well.

So it told others and me plenty that it proved ASL (BiBi) works the best as the early intervention tool so far.

As you should have noticed that most AD posters agree the same thing except for the few. Yet it's not enough to count to be fair enough. If those few continue to disagree, you're free to do so but it won't change my or other ASL supporters' opinions, however.

Well said, Web730.

 

[Daredevel7]

There is nothing wrong with a deaf child learning to speak. However, there is something wrong when speech becomes so much of a focus that the linguistic environment of that child is restricted and their language acquisition and development is delayed as a result.

The same can be applied for ASL. I'm concerned that that focus on ASL will have repercussions too. We all pretty much agree that language acquisition and development is important. No one is denying that. I'm just trying to get a defined opinion of which language should be primary and why. Generally, I am all for case by case basis (as someone said "One size does not fit all"). However, I wanted to know what people would think in the specific case I mentioned (potential good lipreading skills, can develop oral skills without ASL, hearing parents, so on). It seemed to me that you're for ASL first, but you said "No thats not what Im saying" and it didn't seem that you're for oral speech first. So what's left.....?