Article : vocabulary growth in toddlers

[shel90]

Of course you can hear with a HA.... otherwise ... what's the point of using one ??

Right..but even with HAs I still need a visual language and I was denied that. I am hoping that no more deaf children are denied a visual language the way I and many others were because of the misconception that HAs can pick up everything. It is hard on my eyes to speechread everyone and I would get so exhuasted with headaches.

Yes, I believe u and others that CIs improve the quality of sound so it all depends on each individual's ability to process the sound that is transmitted to their brains. Some do so well and some do not.

 

[jillio]

I can't believe I am getting sucked into this argument.

But I feel compelled to ask what it is you are suggesting Cloggy shouldn't believe.

Are you saying he shouldn't believe this?:



Because if you are, then you have me totally baffled.

Are you saying Cloggy shouldn't believe that his daughter is going through the same stages as a hearing child?

Because if you are... I want to know what makes you think you somehow know more about Lotte and her development than her father does.

I haven't been on AllDeaf for months because whenever I come here it is nothing but the same old arguments.

But this one got to me.

I understand you have your feelings and opinions about CIs. And I know you can substantiate your arguments with various "facts" that are pulled from multiple sources. And that is fine. I don't buy into it... but it is fine if you do.

But, do not question a parent's first hand knowledge of what their child is experiencing and what kind of success they are seeing. Because no matter what "statistical study" either side pulls up, those of us with children who are successful with CIs know more about what they are capable of than any scientist or internet forum "CI expert" knows.

Gah. I can't take this stuff.

I hate to tell you this, but there are FAR MORE successful CI surgeries on children than there are unsuccessful. That is fact. If it is so hard for you to accept, then fine. Don't accept it.

Gah. GAH.

Yep, I guess that's why so many deaf schools are develping CI programs for the children who have CIs and aren't able to function as hearing children, but function as assisted deaf children.

And I suppose that would depend of your definition of successful. If you consider successful gaining increased perception of sound, then I would agree with you. However, if you consider successful to be actually functioning on all levels as a hearing child, and following the same pathways through those developmental milestones, then I would disagree with you.

 

[shel90]

Nope, deaf children with CI have the opportunity to hear, and follow the same road as children that hear naturally.
Nothing misleading.... Lotte is going through the same stages as a naturally hearing child. with a couple of years delay..

As the parent of a deaf child with CI that can hear, I am very happy that Neecy posted the article. And in this thread...

NOW,
Can you get off Shel's pony and make a real, positive contribution to Neecy's thread??

U said Lotte is couple of years delayed...so are many and many other deaf children...that is what Jillo and I are trying to tell u...with sign language exposure, those delays can be reduced or even eliminated. I know u use sign with Lotte but many and many other parents dont. *sighs*

This is not about my ego..this is about my heart for those who suffered. I guess u and others really cant understand how many times my heart got broken when I work with deaf children who suffer from being deprived of language. If u want to make it about egos, up to u but I dont care about egos..just about the children's needs first.

 

[shel90]

If you actually read my post then you would have known that it was I talking about you.

and your point is? I asked a question and yet, again, it did not get answered..*sighs*

 

[shel90]

I can't believe I am getting sucked into this argument.

But I feel compelled to ask what it is you are suggesting Cloggy shouldn't believe.

Are you saying he shouldn't believe this?:



Because if you are, then you have me totally baffled.

Are you saying Cloggy shouldn't believe that his daughter is going through the same stages as a hearing child?

Because if you are... I want to know what makes you think you somehow know more about Lotte and her development than her father does.

I haven't been on AllDeaf for months because whenever I come here it is nothing but the same old arguments.

But this one got to me.

I understand you have your feelings and opinions about CIs. And I know you can substantiate your arguments with various "facts" that are pulled from multiple sources. And that is fine. I don't buy into it... but it is fine if you do.

But, do not question a parent's first hand knowledge of what their child is experiencing and what kind of success they are seeing. Because no matter what "statistical study" either side pulls up, those of us with children who are successful with CIs know more about what they are capable of than any scientist or internet forum "CI expert" knows.

Gah. I can't take this stuff.

I hate to tell you this, but there are FAR MORE successful CI surgeries on children than there are unsuccessful. That is fact. If it is so hard for you to accept, then fine. Don't accept it.

Gah. GAH.

Again another aD member resorting to insulting others..wow!


Fine there are more successful surgeries so means those who are not successful...too bad for them?

 

[jillio]

U said Lotte is couple of years delayed...so are many and many other deaf children...that is what Jillo and I are trying to tell u...with sign language exposure, those delays can be reduced or even eliminated. I know u use sign with Lotte but many and many other parents dont. *sighs*

This is not about my ego..this is about my heart for those who suffered. I guess u and others really cant understand how many times my heart got broken when I work with deaf children who suffer from being deprived of language. If u want to make it about egos, up to u but I dont care about egos..just about the children's needs first.

BINGO!

 

[jillio]

Again another aD member resorting to insulting others..wow!


Fine there are more successful surgeries so means those who are not successful...too bad for them?

Denial is a terrible thing for deaf children when their parents remain in that state for any length of time. As is evidenced by the admission that I can supprt my argument with multiple resources, but the poster just doesn't buy into it.

 

[neecy]

Nobody has ever said that children whose CI's fail shouldn't be acknowledged, but the impression I get from your posts, Jillio, is that the children who SUCCEED should be ignored and swept under the rug, or told to go play in traffic because their successes aren't important. Yes there are failures, yes its tragic, and there are other options for their education available, but you can't blame a parent for trying, when they had nothing but the best of intentions at heart.

Is it such a bad thing to acknowledge the successes without putting a * beside every one?

 

[shel90]

Nobody has ever said that children whose CI's fail shouldn't be acknowledged, but the impression I get from your posts, Jillio, is that the children who SUCCEED should be ignored and swept under the rug, or told to go play in traffic because their successes aren't important. Yes there are failures, yes its tragic, and there are other options for their education available, but you can't blame a parent for trying, when they had nothing but the best of intentions at heart.

Is it such a bad thing to acknowledge the successes without putting a * beside every one?

If this thread was dedicated to a particular child with a CI who was successful like the threads made by the parents about their children, I dont go there and bring up the ones that were unable to put their CIs in good use. This article was brought up because u wanted to talk about children with CIs in general, right? That should include those who didnt succeed unless u dont want them mentioned here? I didnt know that this article was talking about one child in particular?

I have posted a thread about a CI success story and I have respected parents' threads about their children's progress about CIs like ashleysmommy's thread. I have applauded her and encouraged her and not ONCE I brought up about those who didnt succeed with their CIS. It is in threads like these that are talking about children in general, that I WILL bring it up and if u dont like it then that means u dont want those children mentioned so..who is sweeping who under the rug now?

 

[Cloggy]

........I guess that's why so many deaf schools are develping CI programs for the children who have CIs and aren't able to function as hearing children, but function as assisted deaf children.
.........

Guess you have something to back that statement up... ... other that your own experience, as we sort of agreed that our own experiences don't count...

Any numbers you have available??

 

[momtotoes]

Denial is a terrible thing for deaf children when their parents remain in that state for any length of time. As is evidenced by the admission that I can supprt my argument with multiple resources, but the poster just doesn't buy into it.

DId you notice I used quotes when I said "facts"?

I don't believe what you throw out is truly factual. You may see it as such, but I do not. If I considered this argument important enough, I would take the time to find and post my own "facts" counter yours, but I frankly don't have the time. I have a child to raise.

Stop minimizing the abilities of these children. It is cruel and, quite frankly, ignorant.

 

[jillio]

Guess you have something to back that statement up... ... other that your own experience, as we sort of agreed that our own experiences don't count...

Any numbers you have available??

Do a little research cloggy. I am tired of trying to spoon feed you when you have no desire to learn. Yousay you want to investigate both sides for your child's benefits. Do so.

 

[jillio]

DId you notice I used quotes when I said "facts"?

I don't believe what you throw out is truly factual. You may see it as such, but I do not. If I considered this argument important enough, I would take the time to find and post my own "facts" counter yours, but I frankly don't have the time. I have a child to raise.

Stop minimizing the abilities of these children. It is cruel and, quite frankly, ignorant.

I don't know what world you are living in, but I can only assume that it is a parrallel universe with the others you seem to support.

A. No one here, including myself, has minimzed the ability of any child. On the other hand, numerous posts have been made by parents subscribing to the oralist viewpoint that an oral child is higher functioning than a signing child, is given more opportunity, and leads a more successful life. That comment, and that attitude, minimizes the abilities of signing children and adults world wide.

B. The "facts" that you refer to are accepted academically and scientifically. I support my claims with valid research. If you choose to discount that which has been proven empirically, it is not a reflection on those facts, but rather on your refusal to see what is in front of you simply because you choose not to.

C. Having a child to raise is no excuse for not becoming informed on all the issues that will affect that child, not just the ones that are convienient and comfortable and fit into the scenario that you have created. I raised a deaf child too. Imanaged to become informed regarding all of the issues, from both a deaf perspective and a hearing perspective, educational, linguistic, social, emotional and developmental. And I did it as a widowed single parent. Sorry, but the too busy excuse just doesn't hold water for me.

D. You have totally missed the point of the discussion. The article posted was in reference to hearing children. You are raising a deaf child. See the difference?

E. It has onced again been demonstrated that those of you who choose to so vehemently oppose any information that would expand your knowledge base do so from an emotional standpoint and are supporting your decisions and your philosophies with nothing more than a childish, "Because I said so!" Stop the name calling and the mud sligning and the childish, "I don't care what you say, I'm going to cover my ears and sing, because I don't want to hear it." I swear, too many people in here ask for supporting evidence, and when they are given what they asked for, turn into juveniles.

 

[jag]

I have a HA and I dont hear like people who dont have hearing losses. I was successful with oral language but I still missed out on a lot.

Ok then your daughter is benefiting from her CIs. AGain agian, great! What about those who dont benefit from their CIs..what to do with them?

Shel I to used HA's and yes I'd have to agree I never heard like a normally hearing person. Fact I'm one of those who didn't do as well as expected with HA's. (always said they're not all they're cracked up to be, lol)

I can tell you that I hear much differently with the CI and I haven't even achieved the level of understanding that Neecy did. (i'm envious, lol) While she's close to 100% When I was tested about 3 months after activation I was in the 80's. And I would have said I was much higher since I was conversing with people and rarely needed to use the 'w' word. (what??) I think I'm in need of a remapp now since I do seem to be using it more. Is it the same as normal hearing ,I have no idea but it seems much more natual to me then the HA sounds.

I'm saying that you cannot compare the CI and HA side by side, they are NOT the same. One produces louder sounds and the other has the ablity to process sounds at a rate that you just get the imput you need and with a clarity one never gets with a HA. Unless you've used both you really cannot compare them. There are different factors that go into the success of a CI, the person, the audiologist mapping the device, the therapists, etc etc etc. Every individual is different. Every outcome is individual.

 

[jag]

Again another aD member resorting to insulting others..wow!


Fine there are more successful surgeries so means those who are not successful...too bad for them?

One cannot express their opinion without having someone who disagrees with them saying they're being insulting? UGH.

 

[jag]

Denial is a terrible thing for deaf children when their parents remain in that state for any length of time. As is evidenced by the admission that I can supprt my argument with multiple resources, but the poster just doesn't buy into it.

I think we might be waiting for you to actually do so. (put your money where your mouth it so to speak) So far Jillio I have to say that I havn't seen you actually do so. BTW, if you are going to support your agrument in a discussion running off and posting everything that supports it under a different topic area isn't very nice, espeically if you don't provide the link to whatever proof you posted. I don't have time to go through all the different areas and find whichever article you've posted. If you really feel the need to post in a different area post your link here rather then expect us to go and find your proof. thanks.

Btw, I know that 'facts' can be manipulated. (even in 'scientific' papers, has happened) I also 'know' that not all individuals are the same. While it would be nice if all children(deaf) had access to visual language I still think that until the Deaf community and educators get out the information showing that both ways *visual and voice" actually complement each other and the child will chose which to become the domment language (as in Cloggy's daughters case, she is choosing voice, for whatever reason you and Shel seem to think that he is 100% oral, he's not if you really read his posts) , but until those of you advocating a bi bi approach begin to get that information out to parents these discussions will remain the same. It doesn't do any good to antagonize the very people you are trying to educate.


JMHO of course. Have a nice day.

 

[jillio]

I think we might be waiting for you to actually do so. (put your money where your mouth it so to speak) So far Jillio I have to say that I havn't seen you actually do so. BTW, if you are going to support your agrument in a discussion running off and posting everything that supports it under a different topic area isn't very nice, espeically if you don't provide the link to whatever proof you posted. I don't have time to go through all the different areas and find whichever article you've posted. If you really feel the need to post in a different area post your link here rather then expect us to go and find your proof. thanks.

Btw, I know that 'facts' can be manipulated. (even in 'scientific' papers, has happened) I also 'know' that not all individuals are the same. While it would be nice if all children(deaf) had access to visual language I still think that until the Deaf community and educators get out the information showing that both ways *visual and voice" actually complement each other and the child will chose which to become the domment language (as in Cloggy's daughters case, she is choosing voice, for whatever reason you and Shel seem to think that he is 100% oral, he's not if you really read his posts) , but until those of you advocating a bi bi approach begin to get that information out to parents these discussions will remain the same. It doesn't do any good to antagonize the very people you are trying to educate.


JMHO of course. Have a nice day.

Jag,

I have referenced numerous articles and books in support of my viewpoint. And yes, facts can be manipulated, which is exactly why I question issues such as control groups and methodology when assessing the support that others have posted. Most of the time, when asked for the information necessary to locate the article, all I get is a link to an abstract. Not sufficient. I don't ask for links to abstracts, nor do I supply them. I want to know what professional journal the article came from, volume number and issue, and date of publication in order that I am able to read the entire article, not an abstract found in a Google search. That is also what I provide. The information necessary to locate the item I have referenced in its entirety. More than once, an abstract has been used to support something in here, but when the entire article was located, even the author's interpretation of results was much different that what the psoter was assuming from the abstract.

I agree, all individuals are not the same. However, there are some common threads, and one of those is that a deaf child, whether assisted with CI, HA, or not assisted at all is still not a hearing child. And a post lingually deafened adult does not have the same language issues that a prelingually deaf child does. And, much cognitve research (start with the research my Marshark--any library can obtain it for any patron) indicates that of the deaf indiviudals tested using sound and controlled procedures, and large sample size along with replication, differs from that of the hearing individual, not only on liguistic items, but on non linguistic items as well. And if that is not taken into account, one is not considering all of the issues that need to be considered.

And you have a nice day, as well.

 

[shel90]

One cannot express their opinion without having someone who disagrees with them saying they're being insulting? UGH.

That person said "gah gah." That was what I was referring to. Why say something like that and not expect people to react?

 

[shel90]

I think we might be waiting for you to actually do so. (put your money where your mouth it so to speak) So far Jillio I have to say that I havn't seen you actually do so. BTW, if you are going to support your agrument in a discussion running off and posting everything that supports it under a different topic area isn't very nice, espeically if you don't provide the link to whatever proof you posted. I don't have time to go through all the different areas and find whichever article you've posted. If you really feel the need to post in a different area post your link here rather then expect us to go and find your proof. thanks.

Btw, I know that 'facts' can be manipulated. (even in 'scientific' papers, has happened) I also 'know' that not all individuals are the same. While it would be nice if all children(deaf) had access to visual language I still think that until the Deaf community and educators get out the information showing that both ways *visual and voice" actually complement each other and the child will chose which to become the domment language (as in Cloggy's daughters case, she is choosing voice, for whatever reason you and Shel seem to think that he is 100% oral, he's not if you really read his posts) , but until those of you advocating a bi bi approach begin to get that information out to parents these discussions will remain the same. It doesn't do any good to antagonize the very people you are trying to educate.


JMHO of course. Have a nice day.

I have acknowledged in several posts that Cloggy is using signs with his daughter.

 

[jillio]

I have acknowledged in several posts that Cloggy is using signs with his daughter.

Yes, you have, shel. As have I. But what I don't get, is anytime we support the use of sign and speech together in a bi-bi environment, we are accused of being anti-CI, even after we have both stated that a CI is a useful tool. Even those parents of CI children who have said that they are using sign, jump all over us when we mention a bi-bi environment, and bring up the fact that, yes, a CI is a great tool for kids, but that it isn't all that is necessary. We have both said that it is a parent's choice to make, but that the child will still need visual input. If these parents understand that, and are using sign with their children, why are they all on the band wagon for an oral only environment? Is it because they don't understand the difference between oral and bi-bi or TC? Because a few days ago, a parent argued with me that their child used signs, but was an oral child. When I tried to explain the differnce between a deaf child sho uses signs and also has oral skills, and a strictly oral deaf child, I was insulted personally, and told that the parents could use any definition they wanted to. But if they are going to make up their own definitions, no one will be able to comprehend what the heck they are talking about. Support for an oral environment means no signs. If we can stick to the accepted definition, we can get a lot of misunderstanding out of the way. And support for the use of sign is not the same thing as being anti-CI.