Tri-lingual: The gift of Language

Thanks!

Cloggy - Thanks for the zipped file. May I copy and distribute?
 
Dear jillio,

It is quite obvious that you did not read the entire zip file as there are mentions of at least 7 longitudinal studies identified as such in the abstracts. Perhaps it would be beneficial to thoroughly read the research that Cloggy has posted. He has not supported your position at all. And before you say that seven is not enough, please remember that this is by no means a comprehensive list rather, it is a small sample to show that research has and is being done on cued speech.
 
owen06 said:
Dear jillio,

It is quite obvious that you did not read the entire zip file as there are mentions of at least 7 longitudinal studies identified as such in the abstracts. Perhaps it would be beneficial to thoroughly read the research that Cloggy has posted. He has not supported your position at all. And before you say that seven is not enough, please remember that this is by no means a comprehensive list rather, it is a small sample to show that research has and is being done on cued speech.
Click to expand...

I said there was no longitudinal data that supports the claim that CS has a positive effect, over time, on literacy rates.

Seven studies in 40 years? Please.

And there is still considerably more research that indicates that sign and speech provide the greatest benefit to the deaf child. Likewise, this is academic, cross discipline research, not research done by oralist organizations, thus incorporating the issue of bias.
 
jillio said:
I said there was no longitudinal data that supports the claim that CS has a positive effect, over time, on literacy rates.

Seven studies in 40 years? Please.

And there is still considerably more research that indicates that sign and speech provide the greatest benefit to the deaf child. Likewise, this is academic, cross discipline research, not research done by oralist organizations, thus incorporating the issue of bias.
Click to expand...

You asked for longitudinal data, you were provided with a sample. Read it and you will see that you have made a mistake with regards to "positive effect".

Once again, I know it's only 7 studies, but like I said before, what Cloggy was so kind to provide to you was not a comprehensive list.

There is still considerable research that CS is beneficial and you have been provided references to some of it. Whether you choose to ignore it or not is completely up to you. Likewise, the research that Cloggy provided has been "academic, cross discipline research, not research done by oralist organizations, thus incorporating the issue of bias." The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education is hardly an oralist organization.

Europe is often ahead of North America in research and incorporating different ideas so the fact that lots of it is from Europe is not surprising. Sign is not the ONLY viable option. Often with regards to leading research from Europe there is a language barrier. This prevents much of it from being incorporated into North American research.

Unfortunately anyone could supply you with mountains of viable research (such as here) and you would still be unable to admit that sign may not be the only way.

You asked for proof and you were provided it, the fact that you refuse to see it as legitimate is unfortunate but your refusal does not remove that fact that it is there and it works.
 
Year: 1984
Title: Claim for cued speech interpreter goes to trial
Journal: Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter
Volume: 8
Issue: 6
Pages: 547-547
Short Title: Claim for cued speech interpreter goes to trial
Abstract: In Woolcott v. Michigan State Board of Education, 351 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984), the court reinstated the claims of parents who alleged that a school district's refusal to provide their hearing-impaired daughter with a cued speech interpreter in her general as well as her special classes violated her rights under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Act. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the state's civil rights act. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
RL: EBSCOhost - world’s foremost premium research database service
This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of CS, nor with literacy, but is a legal issue. In addition, it is 24 years old. This is not research.Author: Abraham, Suzanne; Stoker, Richard G.
Year: 1984
Title: An evaluation of methods used to teach speech to the hearing impaired using a simulation technique
Journal: Volta Review
Volume: 86
Issue: 7
Pages: 325-335
Abstract: Investigated the effectiveness of syllable practice and word methods in teaching speech to severely hearing-impaired children, using an electronic instrumentation technique to simulate hearing loss in 30 normal-hearing listeners who were undergraduates majoring in communication disorders. Ss were assigned to 1 of 4 groups (each teaching method with or without cued speech). Results indicate that a syllable-practice approach to speech teaching showed significantly higher average gains in the acquisition of novel phonemes than did a whole-word method. No differences in gain were noted with the addition of cued speech to either teaching method. It is suggested that word methods and syllable-practice methods of teaching speech to the hearing impaired are more dissimilar than they are similar. (30 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
URL: EBSCOhost - world’s foremost premium research database service
This is about using CS to teach speech, not about effectiveness in raising literacy rates. In addition, it is published by a journal directly connected to A.G. Bad, and is therefore decidedly biased. Small sample size: not generalizable. Likewise, it is 24 years old. Further, the population used for this study was hearing.Author: Aldersley, Stephen
Year: 2002
Title: Least Restrictive Environment and the Courts
Journal: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Volume: 7
Issue: 3
Pages: 189-199
Short Title: Least Restrictive Environment and the Courts
Electronic Resource Number: 10.1093/deafed/7.3.189
Abstract: This article provides a description and an analysis of how the U.S. federal courts have interpreted the least restrictive environment (LRE) clause in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since passage of the act by Congress in 1975. It begins with a brief highlighting of critical events in the evolution of the LRE concept in the political environment, particularly the impact of the clause on the educational placement of deaf children. The central roles within the IDEA of due process and parental involvement in educational decision making are then described. The article then charts the early (i.e., during the eighties and early nineties) evolution of judicial interpretation of LRE, before moving on to a review of cases involving the educational placement of deaf children where LRE has been a central issue. The first set of cases reviewed was all decided at the federal appeals court level, the second set at federal district court level. The article concludes with a comment regarding the prospects for a more balanced approach to educational placement for deaf youngsters.
URL: Least Restrictive Environment and the Courts -- Aldersley 7 (3): 189 -- The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Again, this is a legal issue regarding LRE, not a study on the effectiveness of CS in increasing literacy scores. Therefore, to use it as a sample of research supporting CS as a communication mode or as a teaching tool is absurd. This is an article, not a research report. Qualitative.
Author: Alegria, Jesus; Charlier, Brigitte L.; Mattys, Sven
Year: 1999
Title: The role of lip-reading and cued speech in the processing of phonological information in French-educated deaf children
Journal: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Volume: 11
Issue: 4
Pages: 451-472
Short Title: The role of lip-reading and cued speech in the processing of phonological information in French-educated deaf children
Alternate Journal: 1. Results showed that CS substantially improved performance suggesting that CS corrects for lip-reading ambiguities. CS effects were significantly larger in the "early" than the "late" group, particularly with pseudowords.
Original Publication: 1. The integration of CS and lip-read information is discussed as a function of CS's structural characteristics and the amount of exposure to CS.
Abstract: Thirty-one deaf children exposed to Cued Speech (CS) either before age 2 ("early") or later at school ("late") were presented with words and pseudowords with or without CS. The 1st goal was to examine the effects of adding CS to lip-reading on phonological perception. Results showed that CS substantially improved performance suggesting that CS corrects for lip-reading ambiguities. CS effects were significantly larger in the "early" than the "late" group, particularly with pseudowords. The 2nd goal was to establish the way in which lip-reading and CS combine to produce unitary percepts. To address this issue, 2 types of phonological misperception resulting from CS's structural characteristics were analyzed; substitutions based on the similarity between CS units, and intrusions of a 3rd syllable for bisyllabic pseudowords requiring 3 CS units. The results showed that the frequency of such misperceptions increased with CS. The integration of CS and lip-read information is discussed as a function of CS's structural characteristics and the amount of exposure to CS. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
Notes: 0954-1446
1464-0635
EBSCOhost - world’s foremost premium research database service Alegria, J.; Lechat, J.
This one is about removing the ambiguity from speech reading, which we have all agreed in the past, was Dr. Cornett’s intent. Again, it has nothing to do with increasing literacy scores. Again, extremely small sample size. Not generalizable. Qualitative.Year: 2005
Title: Phonological Processing in Deaf Children: When Lipreading and Cues Are Incongruent
Journal: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Volume: 10
Issue: 2
Pages: 122
Original Publication: 1. Taleoppfattelse. With congruent cues, performance improved, with improvements greater in the early than the late group. the effect of incongruent cues increased when the visibility of the target phoneme decreased. The results are compatible with the notion that the perceptual system integrates cues and lipreading according to principles similar to those evoked to explain audiovisual integration (jfr McGurk-effekt hos hørende).
Abstract: Deaf children exposed to Cued Speech (CS), either before age two (early) or later at school (late), were presented with pseudowords with and without CS. The main goal was to establish the way in which lipreading and CS combine to produce unitary percepts, similar to audiovisual integration in speech perception, when participants are presented with synchronized but different lipreading and auditory information (the McGurk paradigm). In the present experiment, lips and cues were sometimes congruent and sometimes incongruent. It was expected that incongruent cues would force the perceptual system to adopt solutions according to the weight attributed to different sources of phonological information. With congruent cues, performance improved, with improvements greater in the early than the late group. With incongruent cues, performance decreased relative to lipreading only, indicating that cues were not ignored, and it was observed that the effect of incongruent cues increased when the visibility of the target phoneme decreased. The results are compatible with the notion that the perceptual system integrates cues and lipreading according to principles similar to those evoked to explain audiovisual integration.
Notes: 1081-4159
EBSCOhost - world’s foremost premium research database service 001&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Again, this is about removing the ambiguity in speech reading, not literacy. In no way does it address the isuses of literacy.
Author: Arnold, Paul
Year: 1997
Title: The Structure and Optimization of Speechreading
Journal: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Volume: 2
Issue: 4
Pages: 199-211
Abstract: Theoretical and Review Articles
The Structure and Optimization of Speechreading
Paul Arnold University of Manchester Erber (1988) has claimed that one of the reasons for the ascendancy of hearing aids has been the loss of confidence in speechreading. Speechreading can be of value to those suffering from presbyacusis and other hearing disorders, in augmenting hearing aids and cochlear implants, for large numbers of people in developing countries who are unable to afford electronic aids, and for those in advanced countries who are reluctant to wear an aid. I discuss the structure and the optimization of speechreading. New methods to optimize.........
URL: Oxford Journals | Medicine | Jnl. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
Another one about speech reading. Useless in regards to literacy issues. Qualitative in nature.Author: Bakker, Klaas
Year: 1995
Title: Two supplemental scoring procedures for diagnostic evaluations with the Speech Situations Checklist
Journal: Journal of Fluency Disorders
Volume: 20
Issue: 2
Pages: 117-126
Abstract: The Speech Situations Checklist (SSC) has been used to systematically explore stutterers' self-reports of speech-related concerns and dysfluencies across a variety of speaking situations. Two supplemental procedures are suggested for analyzing the responses to the SSC to (1) confirm diagnostic decisions regarding stuttering and (2) improve the assessment of speech-related concern. Discriminant coefficients (K. Bakker and G. J. Brutten; 1982, 1984) of 31 items of the SSC were employed to construct a Discriminant Form that supports differential diagnostic decisions among those who do or do not stutter. Results of independent factor-analytic studies by Brutten and P. Janssen (1980) and by Bakker (1982) were integrated in a way that individual responses to the emotional reaction section of the SSC can be analyzed with regard to 9 types of situationally cued speech-related concern. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
Notes: 0094-730X
EBSCOhost - world’s foremost premium research database service
This one is about stutters, not deaf children. Author: Barnes, B.
Year: 1978
Title: Cued speech keeps deaf pupils ahead
Journal: Children Today
Volume: 7
Issue: 4
Pages: 28-30
Abstract: Describes the cued speech method of learning used by deaf children in an experimental program at the National Child Research Center.
Notes: Accession Number: 688809 Language: English. Date Revised: 20041117. Date Created: 19781118. Date Completed: 19781118. Update Code: 20061223. Publication Type: Journal Article. Journal ID: 0320227. Publication Model: Print. Cited Medium: Print
0361-4336 (Print)
This is simply a description of the system, not research at all. Likewise, it was published in 1978!

These are the first few references from the zip file that was presented as research. As you can easily see, there is very little research among the references, some of them are legal issues, and none address literacy, but all address the issue of speechreading. I would go on but have stopped in the interest of space.

Leave it to say, my claims stand.
 
owen06 said:
You asked for longitudinal data, you were provided with a sample. Read it and you will see that you have made a mistake with regards to "positive effect".

Once again, I know it's only 7 studies, but like I said before, what Cloggy was so kind to provide to you was not a comprehensive list.

There is still considerable research that CS is beneficial and you have been provided references to some of it. Whether you choose to ignore it or not is completely up to you. Likewise, the research that Cloggy provided has been "academic, cross discipline research, not research done by oralist organizations, thus incorporating the issue of bias." The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education is hardly an oralist organization.

Europe is often ahead of North America in research and incorporating different ideas so the fact that lots of it is from Europe is not surprising. Sign is not the ONLY viable option. Often with regards to leading research from Europe there is a language barrier. This prevents much of it from being incorporated into North American research.

Unfortunately anyone could supply you with mountains of viable research (such as here) and you would still be unable to admit that sign may not be the only way.

You asked for proof and you were provided it, the fact that you refuse to see it as legitimate is unfortunate but your refusal does not remove that fact that it is there and it works.
Click to expand...

See my above post. I have been provided with nothing of the kind. Including studies done with hearing participants and stutters, legal issues such as LRE, etc. are hardly supportive of anything. And all still have their foundation in the oral philosophy.
 
Owen, who did the research? Were they done by people totally independent of CS/oralism/MCS? If not, then there is always the question of bias. Let me give you an example. Recently I had to evaluate & do some major research on a popular standardized test here in the States - it's called the DIBELS, and while doing research, I noticed that 99% of research supporting DIBELS were connected directly or indirectly to the people who created this test... and 100% of the research saying it doesn't work, were completely independent from the test developers.

SO... there is that. I'm not saying that the research which has been offered here is invalid, but IMO for true validity, the research has to be done without any connections to the subject being researched. (and this applies to EVERY subject that comes under the scrunity of research)
 
jillio,

I'm not going to play that game with you. You pulled out a very small sample of what Cloggy provided. Likewise, none of those were the longitudinal studies you were claiming were non-existant. You have been provided over and over again valid research, refuse to adress others points, and get very defensive if others critique the research that you provide. Once again, I suggest you read the WHOLE paper, not just the abstract (that only provides an introduction and interest).

You were given the research, you were wrong (and that is ok), cued speech is supported via empirical data.
 
owen06 said:
jillio,

I'm not going to play that game with you. You pulled out a very small sample of what Cloggy provided. Likewise, none of those were the longitudinal studies you were claiming were non-existant. You have been provided over and over again valid research, refuse to adress others points, and get very defensive if others critique the research that you provide. Once again, I suggest you read the WHOLE paper, not just the abstract (that only provides an introduction and interest).

You were given the research, you were wrong (and that is ok), cued speech is supported via empirical data.
Click to expand...

And, as I said, I used a small sample for the sake of space. CS is not supported by empirical data. Not for literacy, and not for communication. Speechreading benefits have found mixed results, and that is only with qualitative data. Likewise, virtually all samples are too small to provide any degree of generalizbility. And to include studies done on hearing college students majoring in communication disorders, and studies done on dysfluency in hearing children does not apply, and is, in fact, misleading.
 
DragonYoga said:
Owen, who did the research? Were they done by people totally independent of CS/oralism/MCS? If not, then there is always the question of bias. Let me give you an example. Recently I had to evaluate & do some major research on a popular standardized test here in the States - it's called the DIBELS, and while doing research, I noticed that 99% of research supporting DIBELS were connected directly or indirectly to the people who created this test... and 100% of the research saying it doesn't work, were completely independent from the test developers.

SO... there is that. I'm not saying that the research which has been offered here is invalid, but IMO for true validity, the research has to be done without any connections to the subject being researched. (and this applies to EVERY subject that comes under the scrunity of research)
Click to expand...

DragonYoga,

All the information you are requesting is available in Cloggy's zip file.

I am very aware of biases. You will always find biases in research, people do research in what they are passionate about and will always have some sort of vested interest. That is why you examine methodologies etc. There will also always be problems with the methodologies. One must be able to look and critique all research objectively in order to attempt to get the whole picture.
 
DragonYoga said:
Owen, who did the research? Were they done by people totally independent of CS/oralism/MCS? If not, then there is always the question of bias. Let me give you an example. Recently I had to evaluate & do some major research on a popular standardized test here in the States - it's called the DIBELS, and while doing research, I noticed that 99% of research supporting DIBELS were connected directly or indirectly to the people who created this test... and 100% of the research saying it doesn't work, were completely independent from the test developers.

SO... there is that. I'm not saying that the research which has been offered here is invalid, but IMO for true validity, the research has to be done without any connections to the subject being researched. (and this applies to EVERY subject that comes under the scrunity of research)
Click to expand...

Check the comments in red in my above post to indicate that the majority of what was provided is not even research, does not apply to CS as a tool to improve literacy, are based on speechreading scores (oral method), and two of them were even done on hearing participants.

What was provided is virtually useless.
 
owen06 said:
DragonYoga,

All the information you are requesting is available in Cloggy's zip file.

I am very aware of biases. You will always find biases in research, people do research in what they are passionate about and will always have some sort of vested interest. That is why you examine methodologies etc. There will also always be problems with the methodologies. One must be able to look and critique all research objectively in order to attempt to get the whole picture.
Click to expand...

Passion and interest are quite separate from financial interest.
 
jillio said:
And, as I said, I used a small sample for the sake of space. CS is not supported by empirical data. Not for literacy, and not for communication. Speechreading benefits have found mixed results, and that is only with qualitative data. Likewise, virtually all samples are too small to provide any degree of generalizbility. And to include studies done on hearing college students majoring in communication disorders, and studies done on dysfluency in hearing children does not apply.
Click to expand...

I think maybe you need to get your eyes checked. You've been provided the empirical data and quantitative at that. There is obviously no point in providing you with the research when you refuse to read it and see what it's saying.

loml, Cloggy, keep posting the information when you find it. Not everyone is as dumb as jillio seems to think they are.
 
Back
Top