View Single Post
Old 04-18-2008, 10:47 AM   #44 (permalink)
jillio
Registered User
 
jillio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonYoga View Post
Jillio, yeah I read them. Yours is (as always) a good post, and a good explanation.


Everyone - Jillio NEVER said Sign is the only viable option. She is asking for hard, concrete proof that she can't argue.

We *KNOW* sign isn't the ONLY option - what works for each child is the best option.


Play nice.

If Jillio is asking for proof, FIND the type of research she is asking for, WITH American academic criteria - that is what she is asking for, NOT articles, summaries, etc.


I have always been led to believe that a longitudal study was over the course of YEARS, with a large pool of participants who meet certain criteria.

Since I'm in the middle of Final Exams at my college, I really don't have the time to find it, but if you can find it for me meeting this criteria:

Over the course of at least 5 years
Participants young prelingually Deaf and/or deafened soon after birth
At least 100 students in this study (more would be better)

The question I want this study to answer is: Does CS help with reading literacy better than any other modes of communication?

If you guys can find that for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!
You are absolutely correct regarding longitudinal studies. Because of normal differences in developmental stages, we need to look at the effects over time, so that natural variance in gains due to developmental stages are accounted for. For instance, a child in first grade will make larger gains in linguistic areas than will a child in 6th grade due to developmental issues. If one is to support the effectiveness, gains must be demonstrated over time.

And thank you for reading what I have actually stated.
jillio is online now   Reply With Quote