Originally Posted by loml

What you are saying may be factual for you geographics, but my experiences has not been as clearly defined. I have seen the terms interchanged, not necessarily something that I agree with, it is an ardurous task of re-educating.

Then perhaps you should consult a dictionary. Definition is not dependent upon geography.



ASL is mentioned, albeit briefly. If her intent is with regard to English mediums, then I myself do not find it misleading.

It is not so much misleading, as it is incomplete.

Of course we disect this brief article, but untimately we will look for that which it does or does not fulfill for each of us. This is apparent in our exchange.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

I was eight at the time. My mother was the only one who cued in my family besides me. We didn't cue much at home. Cueing lasted only six months in 2nd grade and by the time I was in 4th grade, I had stopped cuing at home.

Originally Posted by jillio

Since you are both members of the NCSA, perhaps you can answer whether the grant money for her research came from that organization.

Originally Posted by jillio

When one is doing research, one is required to operationally define all concepts being investigated. Therefore, use of the word interpreter, when one is really referrring to a translierator, is unnaceptable.

Originally Posted by jillio

Her passion regarding CS should not enter into her her research. A researcher is, above all, supposed to approach their investigation without bias. If one is investigating communication in deaf individuals, then one must include all methods to remove that bias, whether they are passionate about a given approach or not. To omit ASL from the research is to attempt to skew results in favor of one's own philosophy.

Originally Posted by jillio

Originally Posted by loml

Deafskeptic - I am not familiar with your familial background or your hearing loss history. Would you please considering sharing with me how old you were when you were diagnosed with hearing loss and at what dB, etc? What communication, schooling choices have you experiences, chronologically? Has your mother ever discussed her decisions behind the choices that were made on your behalf?

Originally Posted by jillio

I fail to see why you consider a question regarding grant funding for research crass. It is a relevent question, and quite innocent. Your reaction makes one thing that perhaps there is something you would rather not reveal due to possible conflict of interest.[?QUOTE]

Unfortunate that you do not appear to posses the insight to view this from another persons perspective. Simply put and with no hidden agenda, although you seem to have a need to create/imagine these for me, your statement/not a question: is crass.

There is nothing crass about questioning from where funding for a particular research project is coming from. And it is a statement requesting information in order to answer than question. Why so defensive about answering whether or not you know if the funding for this research project is coming from NCSA. Your reluctance to answer such questions is what creates the atmosphere of skepticisim.

That may be but this is not an example of research.
This is an article describing intended research. It was written and contained in a publication regarding research being conducted at a university. Therefore, proper terminology shoudl be employed. It can be safely assumed that the author of the article received the information regrading the research project from either the researcher, or the researcher's assistants. Therefore, correct terminology should be used.



Again, this is not the research, but simply an article. People do do research on what they are passionate about. You are defining for Dr. Krause how she is approaching/researching this topic, again based on a short article and based on your own bias toward ASL. Are you suggesting that Dr. Krause is unaware of the standards involved for empircal research?

Originally Posted by fredfam1

I am so glad I have begun teaching CS to my kids if only
to get a better understanding of it.

Jillio, and Loml, I understand both of your perspectives.

Loml the fact remains that their have been abuses
associated with Deaf children being forced by some
instructers and parents coerced (it seems to me) in
the past and perhaps it is happening now, to learn
cued speech INSTEAD of ASL.

And I think Jillios intention may be to prevent
that from occuring again. (Crusaders are ready
to pop up every where for any purpose and one really must
remain ever vigilant.) But we need not throw out the
baby with the bath water.

That having been said, I think CS is a marvelous
tool and I think its going to be a very effective
tool for teaching phonics to hearing children and
would work well for THIS purpose for Deaf children
as well. Movement is all ways a good thing while
learning and that is one reason I like this method.

I think some people may be using a shoe for a hammer
by trying to promote CS only, (Not You Loml, I understand
your perspective) and Jillio I really think CS would
be an effective tool for all teachers to use when teaching
phonics and reading to all children but especially the Deaf.

take a look at PJ trying to cue Merry Christmas

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

It mainly helped me with a basic understanding of phonics and lipreading. It's my understanding that it was intended to take guess work out of lipreading.

Phonics has never been my forte btw and I still have some trouble with it. I don't recall it improving my writing as my first grade report indicated that I already had a very good under standing of English. We were all in second grade when we first learned cued speech. I don't recall ever using it before 2nd grade.

Many hearing children are unable to completely grasp the concept of phonics. Especially in regard to decoding the English language, because it is not phonetically consistent. Phonetic approaches to literacy have been found to be most effective for natural auditory learners, and even many hearing children are visual or kinesthetic learners. I am not surprised when a deaf indiviudal finds it confusing, as well. As, as evidenced by your excellent use of the English langauge, difficulty in decoding written langauge phonetically is not a consistent predictor of literacy.

Originally Posted by fredfam1

I am so glad I have begun teaching CS to my kids if only
to get a better understanding of it.

Jillio, and Loml, I understand both of your perspectives.

Loml the fact remains that their have been abuses
associated with Deaf children being forced by some
instructers and parents coerced (it seems to me) in
the past and perhaps it is happening now, to learn
cued speech INSTEAD of ASL.

And I think Jillios intention may be to prevent
that from occuring again. (Crusaders are ready
to pop up every where for any purpose and one really must
remain ever vigilant.) But we need not throw out the
baby with the bath water.

That having been said, I think CS is a marvelous
tool and I think its going to be a very effective
tool for teaching phonics to hearing children and
would work well for THIS purpose for Deaf children
as well. Movement is all ways a good thing while
learning and that is one reason I like this method.

I think some people may be using a shoe for a hammer
by trying to promote CS only, (Not You Loml, I understand
your perspective) and Jillio I really think CS would
be an effective tool for all teachers to use when teaching
phonics and reading to all children but especially the Deaf.

take a look at PJ trying to cue Merry Christmas

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Originally Posted by loml

And it is an article reporting on intended research. Yes, people do research what they are passionate about. But they also include those variables and controls that, omitted, have the propensity to skew data collected. In this case, that would be ASL. I never suggested anything of the kind. What I have stated is that this is not a complete study without the inclusion of ASL.

Originally Posted by jillio

I agree that it very well could be a useful tool to teach phonetic decoding and assist in literacy. However, it is being portrayed in this particular research, not as a teaching tool, but as a communication method. So you are correct in your conclusions regarding my problems with such research. If the intent is to make parents aware of all methods, and to investigate the effectiveness of each in order to better inform parents regarding those methods, then all methods must be included. If one is concerned about the number of comprehension errors involved in transliteration/interpretation, then one must look at the errors from the perspective of all situations.

I have stated numerous times that CS could very well be a useful teaching tool. I do not discount it when used for that purpose at all. I discount its promotion as a communciation mode, and especially when advocated as the primary communication mode.

The deaf student population is not homogeneous. Just as there are hearining children who do not do well with a phonetic approach to reading skills, there are those deaf students who will not do well with a phonetic approach. Therefore, it is necessary to keep CS in mind as a tool, not as an overall answer to literacy problems.

And a very Merry Christmas to your P.J. as well.

Originally Posted by jillio

I'm a very visual learner and I've always thought that even if I were hearing, I'd be a visual person. Spoken words will have little meaning to me unless I have a visual symbol for it even though I can hear them quite clearly. A recent example is the time I called my big sister on the phone and she told me what town my niece is going to. I have no idea what town she's in even though I know it's near the beach and that the community college she's going to near is it. I must see the name of the town for the name to register.

Heh English Phonics.. I believe Bernard Shaw is famous for complaining about it.

Originally Posted by loml

jillio - I understand that you cannot accept Cued Speech as a communication method for a hearing family with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/Autism etc. I however, cannot lay idle when Cued Speech is portrayed as unsuccessful as a primary communication and inclusion method. I have witnessed many successes.

Unfortunately I have also witnessed more hearing families with a child that is deaf/hoh/Down Syndrom/autism etc. who are unsuccessful using ASL as a primary communication and inclusion method.

Originally Posted by loml

deafskeptic - Thank you for sharing. Was your mother a fluent cuer of Enlgish? Were you?

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

Yep, Shaw was a quite critical of English phnoics.

I bet when you remember directions to a destination, you do it by using landmarks rather than street names, too. I'm the same way....go to the gas station and turn left. And I take in information much better by reading it than by listening to lecture. In order for lecture to have an impact, I have to take notes and put it into something visual. And when I am trying to recall a specific word, I don't recall by the way it sounds, but by the way it looks. I actually see the written word in my mind.

Originally Posted by loml

What you are saying may be factual for you geographics, but my experiences has not been as clearly defined. I have seen the terms interchanged, not necessarily something that I agree with, it is an ardurous task of re-educating.

Originally Posted by jillio

I believe that the largest variable is the Dr. Krause is looking at English and the accuracy of the delivery of the method. This is NOT about ASL, this, imo, is about Enlgish. And without you contacting Dr. Krause directly, you accusations of skewed data are unjustified.
potaoe or potato??