Well, look, the Daily Moth is discussing this article
https://www.*********.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Daily-Moth-6-28-17
...And a neuroscientist and other researchers are coming to much the same conclusions I did:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...or-a-flawed-study-is-harmful-to-deaf-children
Quoting from Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D. (bold added by me):
Like White and Cooper, we also agree with parents and pediatricians that ensuring each child’s optimal physical, emotional, and social development is important. However, we strongly disagree with their conclusion that “for hearing parents of deaf infants who have chosen cochlear implants, [Geers et al.] findings suggest that learning a sign language should be an option rather than an imperative.”
Within one week of publication, 14 physicians, pediatricians, psychologists, and linguists wrote five separate responses, pointing out that the very study White and Cooper praise is marked with methodological flaws and unjustified claims[1,2,3,4,5]. As deaf scientists, we fear that the results would be accepted as appropriate evidence to support claims that deaf children do not need to learn sign language, further increasing the real risk of impoverished language and cognitive development.
First, Geers et al. failed to distinguish between a natural, human signed language (here, American Sign Language, ASL) and artificial, invented systems to visually convey English.
Grouping children together who use any visual form of communication under the umbrella of “sign language” makes it impossible to demonstrate the known benefits of learning ASL[1]. Secondly, additional factors that weaken Geers et al.’s findings include that signing children’s auditory perception abilities were much lower than that of other children[4], and that maternal education and income were not controlled[2, 4].
Consequently,
Geers et al. failed to distinguish whether ASL impeded, facilitated, or had no impact on spoken English development. Yet, Geers et al. and White and Cooper clearly favor the hypothesis that ASL impedes English development but it is neither the only nor the best interpretation of the data[3]. Their interpretations are based on
correlational analyses, yet they suggest causal relations which their own methodology failed to establish[5]. Their results have no bearing on whether exposure to a natural sign language has deleterious effects on deaf children’s cognitive, language, and socio-emotional outcomes, but they are dangerously framed and misinterpreted as such[1].
We and others offer a more plausible conclusion:
the continued use of some form of visual communication is the consequence of limited spoken language progress, not the cause. Families who chose to continue using visual communication with their deaf child may have done so precisely because cochlear implants did not deliver the expected auditory benefits and/or spoken language communication was difficult[2]. It is likely that these very same children were suffering from long-term effects of early language deprivation, as evidenced by their poorer language and reading scores.
Geers et al.’s conclusions contribute to long-standing biases, resistance, and misperceptions against natural sign languages in clinical recommendations for deaf children[1]. The unsupported claims further complicate what White and Cooper wrongly describe as the acrimonious “debates between advocates of signing and non-signing.” In truth, we and others advocate for deaf children to receive the robust cognitive, language, and reading benefits afforded by more, not less, language--a scientific finding unfortunately obscured by the present study and accompanying commentary[2,5].
Peter C. Hauser, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsychologist, Professor
Director, NTID Center on Cognition and Language
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology
Geo Kartheiser
Doctoral Candidate
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University
Adam Stone, Ph.D.
Educational Neuroscientist
Ph.D. in Educational Neuroscience (PEN) Program
Gallaudet University
1. Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Lillo-Martin, D. (19 June 2017) Operationalization and measurement of sign language. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...
2. Dye, M. W., Kushalnagar, P., & Henner, J. (19 June 2017). Concerns with data analysis and interpretation. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...
3. Hall, M. L., Schönström, K., & Spellun, A. (19 June 2017). Failure to distinguish among competing hypotheses. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...
4. Martin, A., J., Napoli, D. J., & Smith, S. R. (18 June 2017). Re: Methodological Concerns Suspend Interpretations. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...
5. St. John, R., Clark, T. A., & Nutt, R. C. (18 June 2017). To the editor: Concerns with correlative data. [Online comment to Geers et al. (2017), Pediatrics, 140(1):e20163489]. Retrieved from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016...
