Acoustic Characteristics of the Speech of Young Cochlear Implant Users - Page 3

jillio · 11-21-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

It's us, who are in the adult deaf population that have to take care of the "success children" later when they are trashing around us to learn sign language. It's next to impossible for many parents to forecast this. Less oralism, means less work for the deaf community. That's perhaps why most deaf people are against oralism.

Good point. Less oralism also means less work for the deaf child, and a greater degree of communication skills, higher literacy, and improved self image.

jackiesolorzano · 11-21-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafdyke

Oh agreed. Sped just seems to be too "general special ed" and not too much info on how to teach kids with more classic disabilites. My best friend is blind and he experianced a lot of the same things that I have. I also have a ton of friends who are teachers, and I knew more then they did about special ed!
Rick, that's not quite true. Yes, some kids don't suceed b/c of minimal parental involvment. But a) oral only can be a little too "therapy 24/7" for some families. Some families cannot handle the intensity of "therapyizing" their kid and b) it's not all about methodology.There ARE cases where a CI only gives eniromental sounds, or some speech sounds or some words. Not all deaf kids will be functionally hoh with CI.

Oh, and I think that the kids who aren't going to be total oral sucesses, tend to be referred to TC programs a little earlier then they would have in the old days. That still doesn't mean that they don't have significent language delays.

DEAFDYKE,

You are mistaken, in our home we do not DO therapy 24 hours a day. What we have done is change our lives to fit into what our children need. It is a way of life it is not therapy 24 hours a day. But unless you have been in our home, you would have no idea what we do for our children to be successful.

jackiesolorzano · 11-21-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Jackie,

I could not agree with you more as your experiences dovetail with mine. I have yet to me a successfully implanted child that did not have at least one dedicated parent actively involved in the child's development. I too know children who did not succeed with their implants and with few exceptions, it was neither the implant nor the language choice, but rather the parents' lack of involvement, care or concern with their deaf child's development.

A child who is 8-12 years old with severe language delays is not an overnight event but the result of years of neglect and/or denial by the parents.

Rick

PS Congratulations on your victory with your SD with respect to your daughter but I feel so bad that they are still fighting you in getting the proper services for your son. Good luck and if I can help, let me know.

Rick,
Thank you, I trying to think why the school district is fighting us in order to get CART for my son. They have already spent $100,000 on my daughter's case. They are also not thinking very clearily, they dropped their appeal 2 weeks before my son's case began. We are now able to use my daughter's case in my son's. It just doesn't make sense.

jackiesolorzano · 11-21-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Good point. Less oralism also means less work for the deaf child, and a greater degree of communication skills, higher literacy, and improved self image.

That might be the case with some children but that is not case with my children. My son reads at a high 10th grade and he is only in 9th grade. My daughter is in the 11th gade and reads at a high 10th grade level. They have a high literacy rate. They have a very good self image. They have very good communication skills. My daughter is able to communicate both with hearing people and signers. My son can communicate with anybody although his signing skills are not very good, he is able to communicate with signers.

jillio · 11-21-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackiesolorzano

Rick,
Thank you, I trying to think why the school district is fighting us in order to get CART for my son. They have already spent $100,000 on my daughter's case. They are also not thinking very clearily, they dropped their appeal 2 weeks before my son's case began. We are now able to use my daughter's case in my son's. It just doesn't make sense.

Can you explain how the CI and full inclusion ends up being the least expensive altrnative int he long run given the expense of services such as CART being demanded at the high school level for CI users?

And, this topic is about focusing on the CI users pronunciation and speech, rather than on their language acquisition and use. It is a statement of priorities, and the mistaken assumtption that being able to speak well indicates advanced ability to use language and advanced cognitive capabilities. What are your comments on that assumption?

jillio · 11-21-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackiesolorzano

That might be the case with some children but that is not case with my children. My son reads at a high 10th grade and he is only in 9th grade. My daughter is in the 11th gade and reads at a high 10th grade level. They have a high literacy rate. They have a very good self image. They have very good communication skills. My daughter is able to communicate both with hearing people and signers. My son can communicate with anybody although his signing skills are not very good, he is able to communicate with signers.

I've seen examples of your son's writing skills.

shel90 · 11-21-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Good point. Less oralism also means less work for the deaf child, and a greater degree of communication skills, higher literacy, and improved self image.

That is so evident with my students who have been exposed to both approaches since their diagnosis as opposed to those who were raised orally. From my experience the ones that came to our school later are lacking in self-confidence in social situations. I have yet seen one oral student become a leader or stand up for themselves to the other students who grew up with both approaches. I am still like that in many ways when it comes to my self-confidence in social groups.

shel90 · 11-21-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

Jackie,

I could not agree with you more as your experiences dovetail with mine. I have yet to me a successfully implanted child that did not have at least one dedicated parent actively involved in the child's development. I too know children who did not succeed with their implants and with few exceptions, it was neither the implant nor the language choice, but rather the parents' lack of involvement, care or concern with their deaf child's development.

A child who is 8-12 years old with severe language delays is not an overnight event but the result of years of neglect and/or denial by the parents.

Rick

PS Congratulations on your victory with your SD with respect to your daughter but I feel so bad that they are still fighting you in getting the proper services for your son. Good luck and if I can help, let me know.

I agree with u that the implant has nothing to do whether a child succeeds or fails but I dont agree with u that lack of parent involvment is the only factor. Some of the students who fell far behind have parents who are involved and it is because of their involvement is that they got fed up with the kinds of approaches being used in the mainstreamed programs and pulled them out. Not only that, my mom was very involved in working hard with my brother and I to develop speech skills but my brother was unable to do so despite having been in the exact same programs I was in. The amount of parental involvement does have an impact but in some situations it is not the
only factor to whether a child succeeds or not.

rick48 · 11-21-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

I agree with u that the implant has nothing to do whether a child succeeds or fails but I dont agree with u that lack of parent involvment is the only factor. Some of the students who fell far behind have parents who are involved and it is because of their involvement is that they got fed up with the kinds of approaches being used in the mainstreamed programs and pulled them out. Not only that, my mom was very involved in working hard with my brother and I to develop speech skills but my brother was unable to do so despite having been in the exact same programs I was in. The amount of parental involvement does have an impact but in some situations it is not the
only factor to whether a child succeeds or not.

Never said it was the only factor. Obviously there are no absolutes but parental involvement or the lack of parental involvement plays a major role in the development of any child, hearing or deaf.

rick48 · 11-21-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackiesolorzano

DEAFDYKE,

You are mistaken, in our home we do not DO therapy 24 hours a day. What we have done is change our lives to fit into what our children need. It is a way of life it is not therapy 24 hours a day. But unless you have been in our home, you would have no idea what we do for our children to be successful.

So true, so true.

I find the "therapy 24/7" argument interesting. First off, several of us, many, many times have pointed out that our children did not grow up constantly going to formal therapy that as parents we were instructed to take the concepts and ideas stressed in a formal therapy session and incorporate them into our children's daily lives. Yes, we did talk to our daughter more than our friends and neighbors with hearing children and yes, we did read to our daughter more often and did not just plop her down in front of a TV for hours on end but talked to her, explained things to her, engaged her in conversation--oh horrors what terrible parents were we!

If we chose to imerse her in sign language, how was that going to be accomplished without the same total family commitment and time commitment since neither our child nor us nor anyone in our families knew sign language? We would have taken sign classes (which my wife and mother-in-law did) provided her with extensive sign language therapy (guess it is only work for the deaf child when its oral therapy) and then take the concepts and ideas stressed in a formal sign language therapy session and incorporate them into our children's daily lives. We would have talked to her in sign, explained things to her in sign and engaged her in conversation in sign constantly in order to increase both her and our language skills and development. Just as we did for her orally.

jillio · 11-21-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

That is so evident with my students who have been exposed to both approaches since their diagnosis as opposed to those who were raised orally. From my experience the ones that came to our school later are lacking in self-confidence in social situations. I have yet seen one oral student become a leader or stand up for themselves to the other students who grew up with both approaches. I am still like that in many ways when it comes to my self-confidence in social groups.

That is understandable. It is much harder to overcome than it is to prevent.

jillio · 11-21-2007, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick48

So true, so true.

I find the "therapy 24/7" argument interesting. First off, several of us, many, many times have pointed out that our children did not grow up constantly going to formal therapy that as parents we were instructed to take the concepts and ideas stressed in a formal therapy session and incorporate them into our children's daily lives. Yes, we did talk to our daughter more than our friends and neighbors with hearing children and yes, we did read to our daughter more often and did not just plop her down in front of a TV for hours on end but talked to her, explained things to her, engaged her in conversation--oh horrors what terrible parents were we!

If we chose to imerse her in sign language, how was that going to be accomplished without the same total family commitment and time commitment since neither our child nor us nor anyone in our families knew sign language? We would have taken sign classes (which my wife and mother-in-law did) provided her with extensive sign language therapy (guess it is only work for the deaf child when its oral therapy) and then take the concepts and ideas stressed in a formal sign language therapy session and incorporate them into our children's daily lives. We would have talked to her in sign, explained things to her in sign and engaged her in conversation in sign constantly in order to increase both her and our language skills and development. Just as we did for her orally.

Actually, exposing a deaf child to sign is not directive at all, but allows them to gain language through incidental exposure the same way that a hearing child gains language through incidental exposure. Formal lessons for the child are not required, as the child does not need to be taught to use their eyes. They naturally do so as their strongest sense. A deaf child in an oral environment, however, must be taught to listen, as well as to speak, maing that situation much more directive and lacking in spontaneous and nondirected acquisaition of language.

jillio · 11-21-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

I agree with u that the implant has nothing to do whether a child succeeds or fails but I dont agree with u that lack of parent involvment is the only factor. Some of the students who fell far behind have parents who are involved and it is because of their involvement is that they got fed up with the kinds of approaches being used in the mainstreamed programs and pulled them out. Not only that, my mom was very involved in working hard with my brother and I to develop speech skills but my brother was unable to do so despite having been in the exact same programs I was in. The amount of parental involvement does have an impact but in some situations it is not the
only factor to whether a child succeeds or not.

The studies I quoted from Marshark, et.al. (2007) in a previous post concluded that when the involvement of the parents was the variable controlled for, the greatest differences were found resulting from the choice of communication environment. And that the highest functioning (both CI users and HA users) were children exposed to both sign and speech.

deafdyke · 11-21-2007, 11:23 PM

Thank you jillo! Rick, that is very easy to explain. Yes, some oral-only kids do very well with just normal parental involvement, plus a foundation of early intervention. I did myself. I didn't need oral deaf schooling or a speech therapist specificly for dhh kids. I think what you and jackie don't understand is that for you, all the pieces that go together to produce a kid with good oral skills were there from the get go. You were lucky that way. A lot of other people don''t/didn't have all the pieces, such as good health insurance, abilty to relocate (to good oral programs), abilty to supplement therapies, good response to amplification and so on. Not all dhh kids respond well to just normal parental involvement. There are parents who go overboard, and who therapyizie their kids, by requiring only speech, attendance at oral schools, constant "let's do the "games" in the John Tracy clinic correspondance course, and let's also do audio-verbal therapy instead of just hanging out and being a kid (which can be enriching in of itself)
The difference between a bilingal route (which is what I'm proposing for almost all dhh kids) and oral only, is exactly like the difference in performance that you would get between someone who can speak English, but who's strengh is French, attending a bilingal school, vs. limiting them to a monolingal (English only) approach. I remmy when i went to summer camp as a teen, there were girls there from Quebec who could speak English pretty well. But it took a LOT of effort and energy. That's pretty much the same with us oral kids. It often takes a lot of energy for us to speak English b/c it concentrates so much on a weakness. Whereas with ASL, we are people, who's primary strengh is visual input. We can pick up ASL visually, and EASILY, without having to
Think of the language you learned in high school. You can speak it, yes? You might even be able to speak it very fluently. But in the end you're always more comfortable with English, b/c it's your strengh.

flip · 11-22-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Actually, exposing a deaf child to sign is not directive at all, but allows them to gain language through incidental exposure the same way that a hearing child gains language through incidental exposure. Formal lessons for the child are not required, as the child does not need to be taught to use their eyes. They naturally do so as their strongest sense. A deaf child in an oral environment, however, must be taught to listen, as well as to speak, maing that situation much more directive and lacking in spontaneous and nondirected acquisaition of language.

I scratch my head on the use of "sign language therapy" in Rick48's post, I belived I had heard everything but this was something new. Imagine hearing kids getting english therapy

Cloggy · 11-22-2007, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

.........
I have not judged Cloggy nor his daughter. You seem to consider pointing out inconsistencies and innacuracies as judgments. They are not. They are, quite simply, corrections of innacuracies. Cloggy attempts to portray the CI as a miracle devise, and consistently reiterates that sign language is no longer necessary for his daughter becuase of his CI, yet he also fails to mention the fact that his daughter is language delayed by 2 years. This is pertinent information to any parent making a decision regarding both CI and the linguistic environment that is to follow.
.....

Yes you have, and you're doing it right now:

Quote:

"Cloggy attempts to portray the CI as a miracle devise.."

I have never claimed that.... and don't think so.... why are you saying that?

..............

Quote:

"...consistently reiterates that sign language is no longer necessary for his daughter becuase of his CI"

... it isn't... and how are you to judge that I am wrong in that assumption?

..............

Quote:

"yet he also fails to mention the fact that his daughter is language delayed by 2 years"

..... I have mentioned it frequently; in AllDeaf, and in Lotte's blog. Actually, what I failed to mention is that her language delay is reducing...

.........

.....
So, Jillio, can you please stop making accusations that are totally without any foundation?

deafskeptic · 11-22-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloggy

..... I have mentioned it frequently; in AllDeaf, and in Lotte's blog. Actually, what I failed to mention is that her language delay is reducing...
[SIZE]

What steps are you taking to address Lotte's language delay? We're interested in how you're addressing her language delay and what is her current language score? Is she like a year behind or so?

Cloggy · 11-22-2007, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

What steps are you taking to address Lotte's language delay? We're interested in how you're addressing her language delay and what is her current language score? Is she like a year behind or so?

Exposing to language. Dutch at home, and Norwegian outside the home.
In the kindergarten she has a speech-therapist who comes 3 x a week for an hour and works with her...

When she started to hear, she was about 2-1/4 years old. Staring in the kindergarten (summer 2006) made quite an impact. With a Reynell-test in 2006-12 she was at a 2-years-old level, last test (2007-9, 9 months later) she was at a 3.6 years-old level. That's 1.4 years behind.
She's catching up.

shel90 · 11-22-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

I scratch my head on the use of "sign language therapy" in Rick48's post, I belived I had heard everything but this was something new. Imagine hearing kids getting english therapy

LOL! It was new to me to me.

vallee · 11-22-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The studies I quoted from Marshark, et.al. (2007) in a previous post concluded that when the involvement of the parents was the variable controlled for, the greatest differences were found resulting from the choice of communication environment. And that the highest functioning (both CI users and HA users) were children exposed to both sign and speech.

Its Marschark. Here is his homepage.

Marc Marschark's Home Page

He seems to have a lot of research in press. Might be interesting to read his research since his research is current.

vallee · 11-22-2007, 09:31 AM

This might be a good college textbook to read.

Oxford University Press: Advances in the Spoken-Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Patricia Elizabeth Spencer

Advances in the Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

It seems to discuss cochlear implants as a benefit for spoken language development and well as hearing aids.

shel90 · 11-22-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallee

This might be a good college textbook to read.

Oxford University Press: Advances in the Spoken-Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Patricia Elizabeth Spencer

Advances in the Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

It seems to discuss cochlear implants as a benefit for spoken language development and well as hearing aids.

I have nothing against teaching deaf children spoken language but what I am against is using only spoken language with them in the educational setting due to the risk of the children missing gaps due to not being able to "hear" everything that is being said. That is where sign language comes in.

Kaitin · 11-22-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flip

11-22-2007, 09:31 AM	#81 (permalink)
vallee Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Tennessee Posts: 1,115	This might be a good college textbook to read. Oxford University Press: Advances in the Spoken-Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Patricia Elizabeth Spencer Advances in the Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children It seems to discuss cochlear implants as a benefit for spoken language development and well as hearing aids. __________________ Right and Left Implanted July 19, 2007 Activated August 9, 2007 Both Advanced Bionics Harmony

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-21-2007, 11:23 PM	#74 (permalink)
deafdyke So NOT a Princess! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Trebekistan Posts: 6,685	Thank you jillo! Rick, that is very easy to explain. Yes, some oral-only kids do very well with just normal parental involvement, plus a foundation of early intervention. I did myself. I didn't need oral deaf schooling or a speech therapist specificly for dhh kids. I think what you and jackie don't understand is that for you, all the pieces that go together to produce a kid with good oral skills were there from the get go. You were lucky that way. A lot of other people don''t/didn't have all the pieces, such as good health insurance, abilty to relocate (to good oral programs), abilty to supplement therapies, good response to amplification and so on. Not all dhh kids respond well to just normal parental involvement. There are parents who go overboard, and who therapyizie their kids, by requiring only speech, attendance at oral schools, constant "let's do the "games" in the John Tracy clinic correspondance course, and let's also do audio-verbal therapy instead of just hanging out and being a kid (which can be enriching in of itself) The difference between a bilingal route (which is what I'm proposing for almost all dhh kids) and oral only, is exactly like the difference in performance that you would get between someone who can speak English, but who's strengh is French, attending a bilingal school, vs. limiting them to a monolingal (English only) approach. I remmy when i went to summer camp as a teen, there were girls there from Quebec who could speak English pretty well. But it took a LOT of effort and energy. That's pretty much the same with us oral kids. It often takes a lot of energy for us to speak English b/c it concentrates so much on a weakness. Whereas with ASL, we are people, who's primary strengh is visual input. We can pick up ASL visually, and EASILY, without having to Think of the language you learned in high school. You can speak it, yes? You might even be able to speak it very fluently. But in the end you're always more comfortable with English, b/c it's your strengh.