Oral school

[Mrs Bucket]

This is why I really advocate this.. the language acquisition.

I really urge the older generation to set aside their personal feelings and focus on the younger generation's future.

The bitter feelings towards CIs will not get anyone anywhere.

 

[Bebonang]

I never said I would allow my child to be implanted with a CI.

I want to move there because they have an excellent education system that has been proven to be successful.

The government supports parents...providing them with resources. For example, parents can take off from work to go to sign classes without getting in trouble with their jobs.

A large majority of the students are graduating on or above grade level. It's amazing.

The minute the baby is diagnosed with a hearing loss, the parent is given ample support.

As for CIs, as far as I know, the government does not force the parents to implant their children. However, children with CIs in Sweden are getting appropriate support that is needed so their CIs were not in vain.

I wll try to understand Sweden's method of Deaf education for early intervention of having a deaf child with CI or hearing aids. I have never been to Europe or any other countries to understand how the society respond to Deaf or CI children, even with babies. I don't know but this is what I stand to believe that Deaf babies, even young children should have a right to know what they are getting into. I am glad to hear that parents or goverment did not have to force deaf children including babies get CI. I apologize ( I am sorry).

 

[rick48]

I have not only cited it, I have posted the actual research more than once. And please don't insert words into my posts. Nor did I say they had "serious" psychological and social issues in greater numbers than children who are neither implanted nor oral. I said that technology does not significantly reduce the psycho-social issues experienced by deaf children in mainstream or oral programs. If you are going to argue with my posts, please stick to arguing with what I have actually said.

Here's what you said in post #970:

"It has been supported through empirical research that oral deaf in a mainstreamed environment experience significant psycho-social difficulties when compared to both hearing peers, and peers in a deaf school environment. This research even includes those students that have the latest technology. The results are the same."

True, you did not say "serious", you said "significant" and no, you said nothing about technology not "significantly" reducing these alleged and unsubstantiated "significant" issues. You just claimed that your uncited "empirical" study included includes somes students with the "latest" unidentified technology, whatever that means.

As for arguing, I am not doing so for one cannot one argue with uncited alleged "empirical" studies that may not even exist. I am merely posting my observation.

This is the same go round with you, you refer to uncited studies, people ask for them, you say you have provided them. Its a nice trick, bogus, but a nice trick.

When you find it, let me know, just make sure its not from a biased source.

 

[dreama]

I am not against CI but not for the babies.

I agree. Babies can't say if their CI is broken. They can't say if their mapping is not set right. I consider good communication skills vital for those considering an implant. When things go wrong with the CI a person really does need to communicate with the world about it so it can be fixed/removed as soon as possible. How on earth is a deaf baby meant to do that.

 

[deafskeptic]

This is why I really advocate this.. the language acquisition.

I really urge the older generation to set aside their personal feelings and focus on the younger generation's future.

The bitter feelings towards CIs will not get anyone anywhere.

Agreed. If I had a deaf child and got CI for my child, I'd make damn sure they learn sign too. I've seen too many of my classmates struggle with language delays.

 

[kokonut]

Here's what you said in post #970:

"It has been supported through empirical research that oral deaf in a mainstreamed environment experience significant psycho-social difficulties when compared to both hearing peers, and peers in a deaf school environment. This research even includes those students that have the latest technology. The results are the same."

True, you did not say "serious", you said "significant" and no, you said nothing about technology not "significantly" reducing these alleged and unsubstantiated "significant" issues. You just claimed that your uncited "empirical" study included includes somes students with the "latest" unidentified technology, whatever that means.

As for arguing, I am not doing so for one cannot one argue with uncited alleged "empirical" studies that may not even exist. I am merely posting my observation.

This is the same go round with you, you refer to uncited studies, people ask for them, you say you have provided them. Its a nice trick, bogus, but a nice trick.

When you find it, let me know, just make sure its not from a biased source.

You're catching on quick, Rick.

 

[flip]

About 80 percent of deaf infants are implanted with CI in Sweden.

That's the numbers I have seen, too. It's interesting that this precentage is similar in other european countries, like denmark. But denmark is the oposite of sweden, much more deafies there are mainstreamed in oral programs.

What is very telling is the bad conditions for deaf that denmark are famous for, like high unemployment rate and lower literacy skills. CI, cued speech and other oral techniques have been common since inventions of the different techniques. Denmark seems to cling to the annual promises from CI companies that NOW, CI finally have improved enough to make the child indepedent(of sign language), while sweden take no chances, and keep a strong focus on bilingualism.

Another funny thing is that swedish deaf people to me aren't more positive or negative toward CI than in other deaf communities worldwide, even if the rate of implants are higher. The negativity toward CI is the same everywhere. I think that's what is frustrating Koknut and Rick?

 

[flip]

I agree. Babies can't say if their CI is broken. They can't say if their mapping is not set right. I consider good communication skills vital for those considering an implant. When things go wrong with the CI a person really does need to communicate with the world about it so it can be fixed/removed as soon as possible. How on earth is a deaf baby meant to do that.

Good point. I strongly suspect that one can wait with CI until the child is old enough to give proper feedback, perhaps 5 years old, and get the same oral results as implanting a seven month old. But it would be a big loss of income to CI businesses if that happened. It's also harder for parents to "force" an implant on an older child, who perhaps then are old enough to do some resistance when it know the values of real communication with real peers.

 

[flip]

You're catching on quick, Rick.

Looks more like he is falling, again. He has done this many times. What will happen next is that someone(if they have the energy to) will pull up the evidence Rick is asking for, and Rick will ignore that post, going out take a beer and completely forget about it. After a month or so, he is back, making "new" observations, and then again asking for evidence, and someone pulls up again.

Pop a beer, sit back and watch this cycle of nature in action. Cheers.

 

[flip]

This is why I really advocate this.. the language acquisition.

I really urge the older generation to set aside their personal feelings and focus on the younger generation's future.

The bitter feelings towards CIs will not get anyone anywhere.

The problem is that CI's does not have a big enough impact on language acquistion to justify how it's used as a tool many places. I think it's possible to seperate younger generations future, and where CI is a tool of audism.

 

[kokonut]

Pop a beer, sit back and watch this cycle of nature in action. Cheers.

Sure, I've seen the same observation. Nothing new under the sun when one cannot answer a direct question nor provide any sources or links based on some certain claims.

 

[rick48]

Looks more like he is falling, again. He has done this many times. What will happen next is that someone(if they have the energy to) will pull up the evidence Rick is asking for, and Rick will ignore that post, going out take a beer and completely forget about it. After a month or so, he is back, making "new" observations, and then again asking for evidence, and someone pulls up again.

Pop a beer, sit back and watch this cycle of nature in action. Cheers.

To early for a beer unless its with some cold pizza, the true breakfast of champions. Flippy are your referring to the string cite of "research" you posted a few months back wherein I addressed your first two examples of "research" that allegedly "proved" your point? As you have undoubtedly forgotten, I advised you that they had nothing to do with the point you allegedly had "proved". If you recall, shortly after that, the thread was closed.

 

[kokonut]

That's the numbers I have seen, too. It's interesting that this precentage is similar in other european countries, like denmark. But denmark is the oposite of sweden, much more deafies there are mainstreamed in oral programs.

What is very telling is the bad conditions for deaf that denmark are famous for, like high unemployment rate and lower literacy skills. CI, cued speech and other oral techniques have been common since inventions of the different techniques. Denmark seems to cling to the annual promises from CI companies that NOW, CI finally have improved enough to make the child indepedent(of sign language), while sweden take no chances, and keep a strong focus on bilingualism.

Another funny thing is that swedish deaf people to me aren't more positive or negative toward CI than in other deaf communities worldwide, even if the rate of implants are higher. The negativity toward CI is the same everywhere. I think that's what is frustrating Koknut and Rick?

Why would it be frustrating to me? It's an opinion of yours.

 

[kokonut]

What's interesting that CI-ed children in Denmark have "higher" (statistically insignificant) self esteem than the hearing group. And they are seemingly bullied less often (though statistically insignificant compared to their the hearing group which means they're basically the same) at school (deaf and mainstreamed schools).

Since it is a habit of mine to provide sources (as opposed to some people in here who just rely on opinions/statements as if they're facts and not provide any sources when asked) I'll do it here.
sdarticle(2).pdf

Yeah, I can see the naysayers come out and point out all kinds of faults in this study. Remember, a study can only show so much and never a complete picture. There are always caveats and that studies of this nature are not meant to be completely conclusive. Though in this one it does show a positive result which would warrant further study and expansion.

This pretty much smashes the idea that CI kids are "loners" and that they are bullied often.

Tsk tsk....

 

[kokonut]

The problem is that CI's does not have a big enough impact on language acquistion to justify how it's used as a tool many places. I think it's possible to seperate younger generations future, and where CI is a tool of audism.

Do you have studies to back that up? And are you advising parents NOT to get a CI for their deaf child since CI is used as a "tool of audism"?

 

[kokonut]

Good point. I strongly suspect that one can wait with CI until the child is old enough to give proper feedback, perhaps 5 years old, and get the same oral results as implanting a seven month old. But it would be a big loss of income to CI businesses if that happened. It's also harder for parents to "force" an implant on an older child, who perhaps then are old enough to do some resistance when it know the values of real communication with real peers.

Problem with that is it'd be too late and pretty much beyond the window of opportunity when it comes the child's plasticity of the brain on acquiring and the ability to understand environmental sounds and speech. Waiting until one is 5, 6, 7, 8, etc would be too late. Just as if you don't help correct a baby's vision early enough it's vision cannot progress or "heal" properly.
The Sensitive Period of Visual Development in Humans

So, in effect, the earlier the better opportunity.

 

[AlleyCat]

I need to call you like Pek did so u can tell me if I speak in a monotone. I do know that I have a deaf voice.

I would love to call you sometime too, Jillio! It would be nice to have a totally unbiased opinion of my voice. I can't ask my family or SO because they are USED to my voice. And even if you already knew I am deaf, you would still be hearing my voice for the first time.

 

[jillio]

Here's what you said in post #970:

"It has been supported through empirical research that oral deaf in a mainstreamed environment experience significant psycho-social difficulties when compared to both hearing peers, and peers in a deaf school environment. This research even includes those students that have the latest technology. The results are the same."

True, you did not say "serious", you said "significant" and no, you said nothing about technology not "significantly" reducing these alleged and unsubstantiated "significant" issues. You just claimed that your uncited "empirical" study included includes somes students with the "latest" unidentified technology, whatever that means.

As for arguing, I am not doing so for one cannot one argue with uncited alleged "empirical" studies that may not even exist. I am merely posting my observation.

This is the same go round with you, you refer to uncited studies, people ask for them, you say you have provided them. Its a nice trick, bogus, but a nice trick.

When you find it, let me know, just make sure its not from a biased source.

First of all, let me put it in simpler terms so that you can understand.

When I say "as compared to" I am referring to control groups used for comparison purposes. That means that the 3 groups were compared for the same thing, with the difference between the groups being noted as I did. That means, in turn, that the oral deaf students group, as a whole, experienced more adjustment problems on the psycho-social level than did the hearing students or the students in the deaf school. If you want to argue with the findings, I suggest that you access the research and study it, and see if you can find any methodlogical flaws.

The study comes from the Oxford Journals, and as I've said, has been posted on any number of occasions. The citation is all you need to locate this particular piece of research. It is available to you through AD's search feature.

 

[jillio]

You're catching on quick, Rick.

Neither one of you have a clue. But its not unusual for people to bond over their mututal confusion.

 

[jillio]

Looks more like he is falling, again. He has done this many times. What will happen next is that someone(if they have the energy to) will pull up the evidence Rick is asking for, and Rick will ignore that post, going out take a beer and completely forget about it. After a month or so, he is back, making "new" observations, and then again asking for evidence, and someone pulls up again.

Pop a beer, sit back and watch this cycle of nature in action. Cheers.

Exactly. He is interested only in posturing and offering challenges, not in actually studying the research and learning something.