Why adults choose CI's for their children

[rockdrummer]

We were born in the 70s. I benefit from my HAs so much that audis were amazed and he wasnt able to so I seriously doubt he would benefit from CIs. It all depends on our inner workings. I think I am more of an auditory learner than my brother so I think, even with a CI, my brother would still need a visual language.

We both were born with the exact same dB level.

Yes BINGO... every child is different, has different learning styles and will respond positively and negatively to different methods and approaches. Thank you for re-enforcing that point.

 

[shel90]

Yes BINGO... every child is different, has different learning styles and will respond positively and negatively to different methods and approaches. Thank you for re-enforcing that point.

And despite my being an auditory learner, I still missed out on a lot by being in an oral only classroom and ended up with a lot of suffering. I still needed a visual language. One must never forget that..a deaf child can be an auditory learning but still need a visual language cuz they CANT hear like their hearing counterparts.

 

[web730]

Visual language comes as a natural for the deaf, even for a HoH or a CI user.

 

[faire_jour]

And just a reminder: I learned ASL because I knew that my daughter needed a language that was accessable right from the start. She has never gained much from her aids, so spoken language was never an option, until now. With her CI she will have a new opportunity with speech that she has never had before. I am lucky that I am extremely bright and good with language and so I was able to become proficient in ASL very quickly. But many are not blessed with the same capacity. I do believe that it is a parent's job to reach the child where they are at, and that is why ASL is the language of our home. But that doesn't mean that I am as good in ASL as I would be if I were communicating in my native language. Though my daughter does not have a language delay, I am POSITIVE that she would be much further along if she was able to interact with me and learn from me in a language I have full mastery of. Her intellegence is high above the level she is functioning at, and that is PURELY because she does not have fluent language models in the home. CI parents simply want to avoid that by interacting with their child in their native language.

 

[shel90]

Visual language comes as a natural for the deaf, even for a HoH or a CI user.

Thank you!!!

How hard is that for anyone to understand? Spoken language comes naturally for many hearing kids but visual language can come naturally for hearing kids too as proved by CODAs.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

But my question is, is it better to have a hearing parent implant a child and have that child be whatever level of successful with a shared language with the family, being able to interact, communicate and learn from the parents OR have a child without access to sound and questionable results using ASL, because they were provided no language at home, unable to communicate with their family, feel completly shut out from their parents, and having no common language at all?

Which is the greater evil?

CI oral only child or non-CI signing child, with a family who can't sign...[/QUOTE]

In my view, they both are agregious. Neither child has full access to his native language.

 

[rockdrummer]

Visual language comes as a natural for the deaf, even for a HoH or a CI user.

Do you think that is the same for all deaf kids regardless of when they became deaf.

 

[jillio]

I read some very interesting research earlier today. The study investigated parental views (hearing) regarding CI. The information was obtained directly from self report inventories, so there are no assumptions regarding parental attitudes. The following is excerpted from this research:

"Cochlear implantation is often chosen by the parents with the goal of spoken language development (Archbold, Sach, O'Neill, Lutman, & Gregory, 2006), and this is supported by the emphasis by many implant teams in advising or providing habilitation programs after implantation that focus on the development of auditory and oral skills. It is also supported by the measurement of outcomes from implantation being most often considered in terms of speech production and perception (Thoutenhoofd, et.al., 2005). Nicholas and Geers (2003, 2006) found that parents' satisfaction with their child's cochlear implant is significantly related to their child's speech and language achievements. Thus, it is easy to evisage that parents would be persuaded of the desirability of providing an oral environment for their child and leave their child with no option but to use spoken langauge." (Watson, Hardie, Archbold, & Wheeler, 2007).

The following statements were the ones most strongly agreed with by those parents of children with CI as related to their choice of oral only communication:

1. I want to use the easiest method (for me) of communicating with child.

2. I want to use the method of communication in which I am most skilled.

3. I want to use the language which is most likely to be useful to my child in the future.

4. I want to use the most effective way of communicating with my child.

The first two statements that most parents strongly agreed with indicate clearly that it is the needs of the parent, rather than the child, that motivates communication choice. The second two statements that were agreed to very strongly by most hearing parents indicate a judgement again made from the experience of the parent's language, and not from the perspective of the child's needs.

 

[shel90]

And just a reminder: I learned ASL because I knew that my daughter needed a language that was accessable right from the start. She has never gained much from her aids, so spoken language was never an option, until now. With her CI she will have a new opportunity with speech that she has never had before. I am lucky that I am extremely bright and good with language and so I was able to become proficient in ASL very quickly. But many are not blessed with the same capacity. I do believe that it is a parent's job to reach the child where they are at, and that is why ASL is the language of our home. But that doesn't mean that I am as good in ASL as I would be if I were communicating in my native language. Though my daughter does not have a language delay, I am POSITIVE that she would be much further along if she was able to interact with me and learn from me in a language I have full mastery of. Her intellegence is high above the level she is functioning at, and that is PURELY because she does not have fluent language models in the home. CI parents simply want to avoid that by interacting with their child in their native language.

If that was the case, I think I would have achieved higher proficiency if I had been exposed to ASL in the educational setting from the get go.

 

[rockdrummer]

Thank you!!!

How hard is that for anyone to understand? Spoken language comes naturally for many hearing kids but visual language can come naturally for hearing kids too as proved by CODAs.

Again, if a parent is choosing a CI route then they are probably pursuing spoken language. Otherwise why go through the risks of surgery.

 

[faire_jour]

And despite my being an auditory learner, I still missed out on a lot by being in an oral only classroom and ended up with a lot of suffering. I still needed a visual language. One must never forget that..a deaf child can be an auditory learning but still need a visual language cuz they CANT hear like their hearing counterparts.

BUT many CI users do not miss out of those things. They are often able to hear and follow conversations like a hearing child. Is it still wrong to have a child who functions so well in an enviroment that uses auditory learning?

 

[jillio]

And just a reminder: I learned ASL because I knew that my daughter needed a language that was accessable right from the start. She has never gained much from her aids, so spoken language was never an option, until now. With her CI she will have a new opportunity with speech that she has never had before. I am lucky that I am extremely bright and good with language and so I was able to become proficient in ASL very quickly. But many are not blessed with the same capacity. I do believe that it is a parent's job to reach the child where they are at, and that is why ASL is the language of our home. But that doesn't mean that I am as good in ASL as I would be if I were communicating in my native language. Though my daughter does not have a language delay, I am POSITIVE that she would be much further along if she was able to interact with me and learn from me in a language I have full mastery of. Her intellegence is high above the level she is functioning at, and that is PURELY because she does not have fluent language models in the home. CI parents simply want to avoid that by interacting with their child in their native language.

But a child with a CI does not learn the spoken language of the parent as a native would. The process is quite different, and is, in fact a difference between learning and acquiring language. Your child does not have delays because she was able to acquire the fundamentals of language useage in a visual manner at an age appropriate time. She will then be able totransfer that internalized knowledge of language function to a second language, e.g. English.

 

[shel90]

Again, if a parent is choosing a CI route then they are probably pursuing spoken language. Otherwise why go through the risks of surgery.

Fine go ahead..but understand that ASL is critical for the child..think of the children first, pls. They are deaf, not hearing.

The view was the same for me but I was the one who paid the heavy price. Even if I was implanted, I am sure I wouldnt have the same equal access to language, communication, and education and my hearing counterparts did.

 

[shel90]

BUT many CI users do not miss out of those things. They are often able to hear and follow conversations like a hearing child. Is it still wrong to have a child who functions so well in an enviroment that uses auditory learning?

And how do u know that? Who told you that? The CI children themselves or the medical community?

 

[jillio]

Do you think that is the same for all deaf kids regardless of when they became deaf.

Natural adaptation would point toward an affirmative answer.

 

[web730]

I read some very interesting research earlier today. The study investigated parental views (hearing) regarding CI. The information was obtained directly from self report inventories, so there are no assumptions regarding parental attitudes. The following is excerpted from this research:

"Cochlear implantation is often chosen by the parents with the goal of spoken language development (Archbold, Sach, O'Neill, Lutman, & Gregory, 2006), and this is supported by the emphasis by many implant teams in advising or providing habilitation programs after implantation that focus on the development of auditory and oral skills. It is also supported by the measurement of outcomes from implantation being mpost often considered in terms of speech production and perception (Thoutenhoofd, it.al., 2005). Nicholas and Geers (2003, 2006) found that parents' satisfaction with their child's cochlear implant esd dignificantly related to their child's speech and language achievements. Thus, it is easy to evisage that parents would be persuaded of the desirability of providing an oral environment for their child and leave their child with no option but to use spoken langauge." (Watson, Hardie, Archbold, & Wheeler, 2007).

The following statements were the ones most strongly agreed with by those parents of children with CI as related to their choice of oral only communication:

1. I want to use the easiest method (for me) of communicating with child.

2. I want to use the method of communication in which I am most skilled.

3. I want to use the language which is most likely to be useful to my child in the future.

4. I want to use the most effective way of communicating with my child.

The first two statements that most parents strongly agreed with indicate clearly that the motivation is the needs of the parent, rather than the child, that motivates communication choice. The second two statement that were agreed to very strongly by most hearing parents indicate a judgement again made from the experience of the parent's language, and not from the perspective of the child's needs.

Thank you for this brief insight as why they chose it that way despite their lack of recognizance as why it makes it more difficult for the child. It's not a surprise as a matter of fact.

 

[faire_jour]

I read some very interesting research earlier today. The study investigated parental views (hearing) regarding CI. The information was obtained directly from self report inventories, so there are no assumptions regarding parental attitudes. The following is excerpted from this research:

"Cochlear implantation is often chosen by the parents with the goal of spoken language development (Archbold, Sach, O'Neill, Lutman, & Gregory, 2006), and this is supported by the emphasis by many implant teams in advising or providing habilitation programs after implantation that focus on the development of auditory and oral skills. It is also supported by the measurement of outcomes from implantation being mpost often considered in terms of speech production and perception (Thoutenhoofd, it.al., 2005). Nicholas and Geers (2003, 2006) found that parents' satisfaction with their child's cochlear implant esd dignificantly related to their child's speech and language achievements. Thus, it is easy to evisage that parents would be persuaded of the desirability of providing an oral environment for their child and leave their child with no option but to use spoken langauge." (Watson, Hardie, Archbold, & Wheeler, 2007).

The following statements were the ones most strongly agreed with by those parents of children with CI as related to their choice of oral only communication:

1. I want to use the easiest method (for me) of communicating with child.

2. I want to use the method of communication in which I am most skilled.

3. I want to use the language which is most likely to be useful to my child in the future.

4. I want to use the most effective way of communicating with my child.

The first two statements that most parents strongly agreed with indicate clearly that the motivation is the needs of the parent, rather than the child, that motivates communication choice. The second two statement that were agreed to very strongly by most hearing parents indicate a judgement again made from the experience of the parent's language, and not from the perspective of the child's needs.

I disagree. I believe the second statement is because they want to be able to teach and communicate effectivly with their child. They don't want their child to have poor language models, and be behind because of it. (See my last 3 posts)

 

[loml]

I'm just playing devil's advocate so....what if the hearing parents never learn more than a handful of signs?

You ask them if they have had the opportunity to explore the option of Cued English.

 

[shel90]

I read some very interesting research earlier today. The study investigated parental views (hearing) regarding CI. The information was obtained directly from self report inventories, so there are no assumptions regarding parental attitudes. The following is excerpted from this research:

"Cochlear implantation is often chosen by the parents with the goal of spoken language development (Archbold, Sach, O'Neill, Lutman, & Gregory, 2006), and this is supported by the emphasis by many implant teams in advising or providing habilitation programs after implantation that focus on the development of auditory and oral skills. It is also supported by the measurement of outcomes from implantation being mpost often considered in terms of speech production and perception (Thoutenhoofd, it.al., 2005). Nicholas and Geers (2003, 2006) found that parents' satisfaction with their child's cochlear implant esd dignificantly related to their child's speech and language achievements. Thus, it is easy to evisage that parents would be persuaded of the desirability of providing an oral environment for their child and leave their child with no option but to use spoken langauge." (Watson, Hardie, Archbold, & Wheeler, 2007).

The following statements were the ones most strongly agreed with by those parents of children with CI as related to their choice of oral only communication:

1. I want to use the easiest method (for me) of communicating with child.

2. I want to use the method of communication in which I am most skilled.

3. I want to use the language which is most likely to be useful to my child in the future.

4. I want to use the most effective way of communicating with my child.

The first two statements that most parents strongly agreed with indicate clearly that the motivation is the needs of the parent, rather than the child, that motivates communication choice. The second two statement that were agreed to very strongly by most hearing parents indicate a judgement again made from the experience of the parent's language, and not from the perspective of the child's needs.

Exactly and like I said, pls...it is about the children first. Not the hearing needs of the parents. Dont put children at any risks for language delays for spoken language...that's all I beg of u. Pls...

 

[Oceanbreeze]

That was my erliar point. You can't just snap your fingers and become a fluent signer. That takes years and it might be another reason a parent would opt for a CI. If the CI is successful then the child may be exposed to a fluent language earlier on.

So, just because it's hard to master a foreign language, the parent shouldn't try? That's a cop out and one that parents seem to do all the time! :roll: