Childs behavior

[deafdyke]

but NOT happy to have ASL and Deaf culture.

You mean not happy to NOT have had exposure to ASL and Deaf culture growing up?
I completely agree with you shel! The fact that a kid can function as a hoh person, should NOT mean that ASL and Deaf Culture might not benifit them.
Why should a dhh kid be subjected to what amounts to an eternal speech therapy session? Yes, I'm glad I can hear and speak. But why should that have been the only tool in my toolbox?

 

[BecLak]

I have spoken skills too!! Some people disagree that what I speak is actually English.


But, this all adds up to the point that I am not an oral failure! :P

ditto, Shel.

Botts, same.

Well said.

 

[deafdyke]

know what the program and many other bibi programs do

So you'd agree that Bi Bi programs if properly implimented are Hoh friendly? I think that's really the KEY to survival of Deaf Schools....that they are hoh friendly! I DO agree that faire joure's experiance with speech with her bi bi school was really bad....but I ALSO think that she doesn't reconize that they were working with limited resources. If her bi bi school had a really experianced speech therapist, she would prolly be raving about bi-bi schools!
And yes.... I've seen on here how parents of orally raised kids were reluctant to send them to deaf school/program being told that "oral kids don't "need" ASL/Deaf culture, and it ended up being the best thing in the world for them!!!! Some kids may not identify with Deaf culture.....but on the other hand, when even hoh kids find Deaf culture to be something intregiting and helpful ....(when the theory is that hoh kids don't"need" Deaf culture b/c they are "more hearing") that's gotta tell you something!

 

[Hohtopics]

If you had paid any attention to many of my posts I would not need to answer that question. :P I was born severely-deaf, diagnosed with HAs at 11 Gave up on HAs at 15 due to multiple problems with them. Now I don't wear any apparatus.

Well, if you've not worn HAs or have had very little auditory input for quite some time, don't you think that could have some affect on your auditory, speech and lipreading skills?

 

[posts from hell]

Well, if you've not worn HAs or have had very little auditory input for quite some time, don't you think that could have some affect on your auditory, speech and lipreading skills?

heh...........

 

[deafgal001]

Well, if you've not worn HAs or have had very little auditory input for quite some time, don't you think that could have some affect on your auditory, speech and lipreading skills?

yeah... she should have been born hearing. *roll eyes*

 

[jillio]

But if I say to you "I'm thinking of an animal, it is a mammal, it's young is called a foal. The hair on the animal is called a mane." and you don't know, you wouldn't be fluent in English, no matter how well you articulate the words.

That is a very specific question. Not knowing the answer could have virtually nothing to do with fluent use of the language. Fluency is more determined by an ability to create and articulate ideas and abstract concepts with the language, not by being able to answer questions. Answering a question is simply demonstrating what one has learned. Just because one has learned what the characteristics of a horse is doesn't mean they are fluent in language use.

However, with the example that AlleyCat gave, it was an elaboration and spontaneous description that was inspired by the word "horse". That is more indicative of fluent use of the language.

 

[jillio]

Then you're just about out of luck, aren't you, with continuing your fight against us? Make a new thread, one that discusses how seven (or younger) year old children learn spoken language today. I suspect you would be about the only poster in that thread, if not a couple others. No disrespect intended, but you are posting about situations that do not apply to the majority of us on this board. We are either older than Miss Kat and learned a different method, or others are post-lingually deaf. Why bother with the "no, no, no this is how it is" when none of us have that experience? I would never be a cat lover going to a dog forum and trying to enforce my cat ideas and processes on dog owners. We know and value our ideas of oral skills, and you disagree because you value your own ideas of spoken language, yet you continually shove it down our throats by saying, "this is how it is today." Guess what? We were not there "today". We speak of what we know of.

Very well said. And you have demonstrated a fluent use of English in your post, even though you wrote every single word of it.

 

[jillio]

Yes, you are right DS, therefore you would need a different set of oral skills to acquire an Asian language.

Not only a different set of oral skills, but a completely different environment. Children are born being able to hear all morphemes in any language. After being exposed to the native language of the home for a short period, the brain starts to filter out sounds that are not used in the language being spoken in their environment. The sounds that are not used in the native language are processed as nonsense sounds, because they contain no meaning in the practical sense of language use and acquisition. A child born deaf, or one that has lost their hearing shortly after birth, does not have the advantage of being able to engage in this important step in language acquisition. However, they will do the same thing if exposed to ASL. They will distinquish handshapes from random gestures very early on.

That is also the reason that those who have acquired a language from birth will speak any other language with an accent, and have difficulty with certain morphemes of the English language. Their brain simply does not process certain sounds as meaningful for language and communication. Therefore, they have difficulty reproducing those sounds.

 

[jillio]

Forming handshapes is in the same category as learning the English alphabet - not relevant to the argument. Oral skills is in the same category as phonics which is the foundation on which you build fluency of spoken English language.

Bingo. And forming and imitating handshapes is also consistent with the "oral babbling" that infants do. It does not have anything to do with fluency, but with the natural acquisition process.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, another thing i am grateful for... not having a set of parents that micromanaged my life...

In other words, parents who were realistic, and allowed you to develop the skills you needed to be an independant person. That is a lot to be grateful for.

 

[jillio]

I believe it is completely reasonable for you to call your experience "oral skills" if that is what you feel best describes it. No one objects to that at all. We are simply explaining that for our children, language is the goal (not just the ability to articulate words), and that is why we refer to it as spoken language.

But what you don't seem to understand is that language was always the goal across time. Oral skills was the way it was approached. And it has been found that that approach to developing language in deaf children is less than effective.

 

[jillio]

AlleyCat, this isn't a fight against you. The OP has a 3YO with bilateral CIs and is asking for advice. Faire Jour has a 7YO with bilateral implants who uses both ASL and spoken language. She has researched so much about what's available to and for children today. This is in no way an indictment of what you've done in the past, and what has worked for you is great input. But why would you suggest FJ's experience and perspective is irrelevant to someone in a very similar situation to hers?

Have any of the hearing parents stopped to consider that what is available today is still based on the principles of the past. The same theory is used, only the techniques have changed. Just like MCEs grew out of the theory of English first, and have largely been ineffective because the technique is based on a theory that has been proven ineffective over time and years of research, anything today that the technique appears to be new but is based on the same outworn and disproven theory of langauge acquisition and language learning for the deaf child is destined to less than effective. Use what research has shown us. Research indicates, even the newest research using kids who have CIs, that kids who are most fluent in language are those that are bilingual. Why? Because ASL addresses the perceptive and cognitive needs of the deaf child who is learning. A child cannot learn if their perceptive and cognitive needs are not fully met. Spoken language does not, and never will, fully address the perceptive and cognitive needs of a deaf child. No matter how well amplified and assisted they are, they still need the visual input to make that learning possible.

All of these methods, past and present, fail to address the basic cognitive functions of the deaf child's brain. Until that is considered, there will be no method that works with efficacy.

 

[GrendelQ]

Have any of the hearing parents stopped to consider that what is available today is still based on the principles of the past. The same theory is used, only the techniques have changed. Just like MCEs grew out of the theory of English first, and have largely been ineffective because the technique is based on a theory that has been proven ineffective over time and years of research, anything today that the technique appears to be new but is based on the same outworn and disproven theory of langauge acquisition and language learning for the deaf child is destined to less than effective. Use what research has shown us. Research indicates, even the newest research using kids who have CIs, that kids who are most fluent in language are those that are bilingual. Why? Because ASL addresses the perceptive and cognitive needs of the deaf child who is learning. A child cannot learn if their perceptive and cognitive needs are not fully met. Spoken language does not, and never will, fully address the perceptive and cognitive needs of a deaf child. No matter how well amplified and assisted they are, they still need the visual input to make that learning possible.

All of these methods, past and present, fail to address the basic cognitive functions of the deaf child's brain. Until that is considered, there will be no method that works with efficacy.

Yes, everyone has said that ASL is very important -- I think that's a given on this forum, that agreement. The conflict seems only to be whether to focus on developing "oral skills" vs. developing the English language at this age.

Do you think that those "oral skills"-focused methods AlleyCat describes having worked so hard on -- and yes, obviously accomplishing so much with -- are what this OP should be employing with this child today?

I acknowledge as many here have said that the means by which many have acquired "oral skills" has enabled many profoundly deaf to achieve a facility with spoken language, with or without amplification or CI, and defer to the personal accounts of these accomplishments as proof. I'm not claiming that any of you did NOT learn spoken English as a result, either directly or indirectly.

But, I do disagree that those methods and means by which spoken language was acquired by profoundly deaf individuals 20, 30, 50 years ago are how this 2 or 3 YO child with CIs can most effectively learn English today.

 

[jillio]

Yes, everyone has said that ASL is very important -- I think that's a given on this forum, that agreement. The conflict seems only to be whether to focus on developing "oral skills" vs. developing the English language at this age.

Do you think that those "oral skills"-focused methods AlleyCat describes having worked so hard on -- and yes, obviously accomplishing so much with -- are what this OP should be employing with this child today?

I acknowledge as many here have said that the means by which many have acquired "oral skills" has enabled many profoundly deaf to achieve a facility with spoken language, with or without amplification or CI, and defer to the personal accounts of these accomplishments as proof. I'm not claiming that any of you did NOT learn spoken English as a result, either directly or indirectly.

But, I do disagree that those methods and means by which spoken language was acquired by profoundly deaf individuals 20, 30, 50 years ago are how this 2 or 3 YO child with CIs can most effectively learn English today.

You kind of missed my point. Even in the teaching of oral skills, or the English language, the techniques used most often do nothing to address the innate learning and cognitive processes of a deaf child. And I am not talking about 50 years ago. I am talking about today.

 

[AlleyCat]

Yes, everyone has said that ASL is very important -- I think that's a given on this forum, that agreement. The conflict seems only to be whether to focus on developing "oral skills" vs. developing the English language at this age.

Do you think that those "oral skills"-focused methods AlleyCat describes having worked so hard on -- and yes, obviously accomplishing so much with -- are what this OP should be employing with this child today?

I acknowledge as many here have said that the means by which many have acquired "oral skills" has enabled many profoundly deaf to achieve a facility with spoken language, with or without amplification or CI, and defer to the personal accounts of these accomplishments as proof. I'm not claiming that any of you did NOT learn spoken English as a result, either directly or indirectly.

But, I do disagree that those methods and means by which spoken language was acquired by profoundly deaf individuals 20, 30, 50 years ago are how this 2 or 3 YO child with CIs can most effectively learn English today.

And I take no issue with that. In fact, I completely understand why you disagree. The initial reason for explaining what we call "oral skills" is because you objected to it. Not the objection itself -- if we demanded you train Li-Li in the exact same method as I had so many years ago, that would be unreasonable. You were saying you object to "oral skills" when basically we were on the same page about developing spoken language. The end result would be the same. You hope(d) (I don't know where Li-Li is at right now with her spoken language) Li-Li will have full spoken language and that was where I ended up too as well.

 

[GrendelQ]

Even in the teaching of oral skills, or the English language, the techniques used most often do nothing to address the innate learning and cognitive processes of a deaf child.

I may be misreading, but it appears to me that you are saying that deaf children cannot learn either oral skills or the English language using the teaching process that you refer to.

 

[jillio]

I may be misreading, but it appears to me that you are saying that deaf children cannot learn either oral skills or the English language using the teaching process that you refer to.

You are misreading. Deaf children every where have learned some degree of oral skills and the English language through these processes. The point is that the learning is stunted and they actually have a cap on what they can learn and how efficiently they can learn it by the method used. In other words, they could learn much more by using a technique that actually addresses their needs, and not the needs of the hearing teacher and parent.

 

[BecLak]

The argument has been that those who had 'oral skills' did not/cannot acquire fluency in spoken language and we are saying otherwise. Those of us debating on this thread are living proof of it. Also, faire_jour was saying that fluency in spoken language can only be obtained by listening and having full access to sounds. We are also proving that wrong too.

 

[jillio]

The argument has been that those who had 'oral skills' did not/cannot acquire fluency in spoken language and we are saying otherwise. Those of us debating on this thread are living proof of it.

Are you referring to the argument I am making in regard to techniques used to teach spoken language or English to kids?