Article : vocabulary growth in toddlers

jillio said:
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?
Click to expand...

Beats me..:dunno:
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeh, Yeh, It all comes down to: ... no facts to share.... guessed so....
 
jillio said:
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.
........
Click to expand...

So all information that is provided to you is rejected, (You want to know what professional journal the article came from, volume number and issue, and date of publication..)
And you provide nothing that can be verified according to YOUR standards..

Your bubble looks lovely from the outside..
 
Cloggy said:
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??
Click to expand...

Check the current events. Take a break from the CI threads.
 
Cloggy said:
So all information that is provided to you is rejected, (You want to know what professional journal the article came from, volume number and issue, and date of publication..)
And you provide nothing that can be verified according to YOUR standards..

Your bubble looks lovely from the outside..
Click to expand...

Once again, cloggy, if you will do the footwork, you can easily find the references I have made. But that would require a little effort on your part. However, if you were truly interested in reading any of this literature, you would have already made the effort. Here's a hint for you....you started a thread that contained only an abstract, but when the full article, as well as a couple of other articles in the same journal were located, the conclusions actually refuted what you proposed to support. Ring any bells for you?
 
To make this easy, I will refer you to a post I just made in the district files appeal thread. Plenty of supporting research there, if you care to read it.
 
jillio said:
Once again, cloggy, if you will do the footwork, you can easily find the references I have made. But that would require a little effort on your part. However, if you were truly interested in reading any of this literature, you would have already made the effort.
Click to expand...
YOu're assuming I haven't - I have.

You try to get away from my real question - when are YOU going to show where your information is coming from.

jillio said:
Here's a hint for you....you started a thread that contained only an abstract, but when the full article, as well as a couple of other articles in the same journal were located, the conclusions actually refuted what you proposed to support. Ring any bells for you?
Click to expand...

So, after 3000+ posts you made in this messageboard, you finally post an article... and the most recent one you could find...., and you still keep insisting that I just cannot find it....
You really believe what you're writing aren't you...
 
Cloggy said:
YOu're assuming I haven't - I have.

You try to get away from my real question - when are YOU going to show where your information is coming from.



So, after 3000+ posts you made in this messageboard, you finally post an article... and the most recent one you could find...., and you still keep insisting that I just cannot find it....
You really believe what you're writing aren't you...
Click to expand...

Cloggy, you know full well that is not the first article I have posted, nor is it the first citation I have provided so that articles can be accessed. You are simply being argument and childish in an attempt to divert the topic. Like a child who tries to pointthe finger at a sibling who did something wrong yesterday to prevent the attention being focused on what they did wrong today. Please...if you can't engage in an intelligent andreasonable discussion, cease these chidish tactics of yors. They certainly don't add to your credibility. First you ask for supporting evidence, and when it is provided, you refuse to engage in an intelligent discussion regarding such. Grow up.
 
Cloggy said:
YOu're assuming I haven't - I have.

You try to get away from my real question - when are YOU going to show where your information is coming from.



So, after 3000+ posts you made in this messageboard, you finally post an article... and the most recent one you could find...., and you still keep insisting that I just cannot find it....
You really believe what you're writing aren't you...
Click to expand...

I have shown where my oinformation is coming from cloggy. Don't you know how to read an APA citation?

And yes, I am assumming you haven't. Your responses are blatant evidence of that.
 
jag said:
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)

Great Point. This is what I have been trying to tell Jillo that you can find a research article to support almost any point As soon as I have time I am going to prove my point.

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. :)
Click to expand...

Such a good point. I know that a lot of people here have turn me off, been rude to me and been downright mean and I am not even a strict oralist. Image parents who are, I know they would never listen to talk like Jillo or Shel. If there was a way to treat us oral parents with respect we might be more willing to listen.
 
jillio said:
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.
So you accept that it is a parents' choice but you are going to tell us parents what choice to make.

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.

They are our children and we will decide what we want to call it. Why do we have to use set definition, set by people who do not know our children. Our children are unique and we treat them as such.

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.

Honestly I do not care if you comprehend what I am talk 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.
Click to expand...

Why does support for an oral envirnoment mean no sign. Just because my children know some sign language does not mean they are not oral or have not been raised orally.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Such a good point. I know that a lot of people here have turn me off, been rude to me and been downright mean and I am not even a strict oralist. Image parents who are, I know they would never listen to talk like Jillo or Shel. If there was a way to treat us oral parents with respect we might be more willing to listen.
Click to expand...

When the oralists start treatingthe deaf with respect, and give credence totheir life expereience and kinowledge, you might get a little respect in return.

Did you ever stop tot hink that you might turn a lot of people off with your oralist attitudes?

BTW, you will "prove nothing with research. Research doesn't prove anything. All it does is either support a hypothesis or a null hypothesis. If you knew anything at all about research, you would already know that.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Why does support for an oral envirnoment mean no sign. Just because my children know some sign language does not mean they are not oral or have not been raised orally.
Click to expand...

First of all, the first comment you replied to was in reference to the decision to implant. You responded inappropriately.

Secondly, you cannot make up your own definitions because you are not the only person in the world who is concerned with these issues. You making things up as you go along is one of your problems. Do you just make up any definition you want to for any word you attempt to teach your students? There are accepted definitions for English words, and those are the definitions one uses. To even ask that question is absurd.

And your children knowing sign doesn't mean that they weren't raised orally, nor did i ever say it meant that. Waht I said (read this carefully, jackie) is that they are now choosing to learn sign despite having been raised in an oral environment, which means that they are no longer strictly oral. They are signers who have been raised in an oral environment, and have oral skills. The accepted definition of an oral deaf individual, in both the psychological, the sociological, the educational, and the cultural view is a deaf individual who does not sign, but relies on spoken communcation both receptively and expressively.
 
jillio said:
When the oralists start treatingthe deaf with respect, and give credence totheir life expereience and kinowledge, you might get a little respect in return.

The same goes the other way if people like yourself and I won't include the Deaf culture because they are all not like you would respect parents then we would respect you. It is a two way street.

Did you ever stop tot hink that you might turn a lot of people off with your oralist attitudes?

But the thing is I am not trying to switch your way of thinking so I don't really care if I do turn people off like you. You are trying to inform us that Bi-Bi is the best approach. It is sort of like you are trying to to sell us the approach you believe in but with your attitude you will not be able to sell this to me or any other oral parent. If you turn me off that I am not a strict oralist image parents that are.

BTW, you will "prove nothing with research. Research doesn't prove anything. All it does is either support a hypothesis or a null hypothesis. If you knew anything at all about research, you would already know that.
Click to expand...

You are so right I know nothing of research. I wonder how I was able to get through my undergraduate, my master's program, and my master's project without being able to use research. Must have been my good looks that got me through. Did I mention that I was the top senior student in my undergraduate program.
 
jackiesolorzano said:
You are so right I know nothing of research. I wonder how I was able to get through my undergraduate, my master's program, and my master's project without being able to use research. Must have been my good looks that got me through. Did I mention that I was the top senior student in my undergraduate program.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you didn't know that research doesn't prove anything. How many methods classed did you take in all this indergraduate and master's level work. And your degrees were in what, again I thought you were trained at the Tracy Clinic.
 
jillio said:
Obviously, you didn't know that research doesn't prove anything. .....
Click to expand...


Ah, that explains the validity of the article you posted...

No wonder we never saw any article from you, and only negative comments on articles that are posted.... .... as you said, your point of view is that "research doesn't prove anything"....
 
jackiesolorzano said:
Such a good point. I know that a lot of people here have turn me off, been rude to me and been downright mean and I am not even a strict oralist. Image parents who are, I know they would never listen to talk like Jillo or Shel. If there was a way to treat us oral parents with respect we might be more willing to listen.
Click to expand...

If someone askes me for my opinion about this approach, I will be honest. Which do u want..me to be two faced or be honest?

I just dont agree with your views and I guess that is considered being mean? Interesting..
 
jillio said:
First of all, the first comment you replied to was in reference to the decision to implant. You responded inappropriately.

Secondly, you cannot make up your own definitions because you are not the only person in the world who is concerned with these issues. You making things up as you go along is one of your problems. Do you just make up any definition you want to for any word you attempt to teach your students? There are accepted definitions for English words, and those are the definitions one uses. To even ask that question is absurd.

And your children knowing sign doesn't mean that they weren't raised orally, nor did i ever say it meant that. Waht I said (read this carefully, jackie) is that they are now choosing to learn sign despite having been raised in an oral environment, which means that they are no longer strictly oral. They are signers who have been raised in an oral environment, and have oral skills. The accepted definition of an oral deaf individual, in both the psychological, the sociological, the educational, and the cultural view is a deaf individual who does not sign, but relies on spoken communcation both receptively and expressively.
Click to expand...


That describes me...was raised orally and have chosen to learn to sign. Is that what u mean?
 
jillio said:
Obviously, you didn't know that research doesn't prove anything. How many methods classed did you take in all this indergraduate and master's level work. And your degrees were in what, again I thought you were trained at the Tracy Clinic.
Click to expand...

My undergraduate degree is from Cal State Fullerton in Child Development. I received a 3.8 GPA and was the top senior student in my department. My master's degree is from Unversity of Southern California USC and my teacher training program was from John Tracy Clinic, GPA 3.75. I also won an working with families award. My second credential was from Cal Poly Pomona, GPA 3.9. I had about 8 method classes. Any more information, you need. I will make sure to go back to the 3 different college I went to and let them know you think I do not know how to do research OK.

The research I said I was going to do this week, I am going to hold off. It has been busy in my household as we get ready for school. I am going to do the research on my time frame not yours because it really doesn't matter what I say or find you will discredit and make fun of it as you always do.
 
Back
Top