flip

Here is a link to a project that help disabled people to produce speech. The tool is Visual Phonics, and they have choosen it over the older and less accurate Cued Speech. It's success with hearing impaired people is mentioned, too.

I am no advocate of visual oralism, just want to balance out the hype on the NCSA Cued Speech system here lately, so people can judge for themselves, and really choose the most effective system out there.

Enjoy the reading

Welcome! Riverbend Down Syndrome Parent Support Group

Deafness

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

jillio

Thanks for the interesting research report, flip. Visual phonics is much newer than CS, and one of the many systems available for teaching phonics. It would appear, at least for the purpose of teaching speech skills, it has some very real advantages over CS.

loml

Cueing does not teach speech skills.

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

jillio

Correction....cueing was never intended to teach speech skills. It is however, being used as such, and is touted as a way for deaf children to develop spoken langauge as a their first, and quite often, only langauge. You are correct that Dr. Cornett never intended it as such, as as he was employed by Gallaudet when he devised the system, it can be logically concluded, given Gally's signing student population and faculty, that he intended it to be used to teach written English as ESL. His goal was to increase literacy. One has to have langauge prior to being able to read and write.

loml

Your logic may have lead you to those conclusions, unfortunately, he is no longer with us to ask for clarification of his intentions.

One does indeed need language prior to being able to read and write, and language can be aquired throught the system of Cued Speech, something that Dr. Cornett did intend.

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

jillio

No, language cannot be acquired through CS, langauge can be taught through CS and those are two very different processes. You are going in circles again. CS is an artificial system for teaching phonics of a spoken language. Acqusition is a natural process, and relates to language acquired in a natural way. And it involves more than decoding phonetic components, but involves naturally occuring uinderstanding of syntax and grammar and structure without it being specified. You need to have an understanding of the differences in learning a language and acquiring a language and the way in which those differeent processes affect the ability to use language.

His intentions were made clear. To teach literacy skills, not to acquire L1 langauge. As much as you would like to believe they are the same purpose, they are not.

Cued Speech was invented in 1966 by R. Orin Cornett, Ph.D. While working at Gallaudet University as the vice president for long-range planning, Dr. Cornett was surprised to find that the deaf student body had low reading levels. He had assumed that the students would be avid readers because books would give them access to information that they could not get by listening. He came to the realization that many of the students who had grown up using sign language did not read well because they did not have full mastery of English. To read and write a language proficiently, a person must be fluent in its use. Such fluency has been shown to begin with the ability to distinguish the smallest components of the language, the building blocks known as phonemes. Dr. Cornett proceeded to invent Cued Speech to enable those who cannot hear English to clearly and unambiguously see all of its phonemic components. In this way they could gain proficiency in English and improve their reading skills.

From the NVCSA webpage

Additionally, in 1966, Dr. Cornett did not have the advantage of the methods currently used to teach ESL. And, in effect, that is what he was attempting to do through CS.

owen06

[quote=jillio;888868]

His intentions were made clear. To teach literacy skills, not to acquire L1 langauge. As much as you would like to believe they are the same purpose, they are not.

Cued Speech was invented in 1966 by R. Orin Cornett, Ph.D. While working at Gallaudet University as the vice president for long-range planning, Dr. Cornett was surprised to find that the deaf student body had low reading levels. He had assumed that the students would be avid readers because books would give them access to information that they could not get by listening. He came to the realization that many of the students who had grown up using sign language did not read well because they did not have full mastery of English. To read and write a language proficiently, a person must be fluent in its use. Such fluency has been shown to begin with the ability to distinguish the smallest components of the language, the building blocks known as phonemes. Dr. Cornett proceeded to invent Cued Speech to enable those who cannot hear English to clearly and unambiguously see all of its phonemic components. In this way they could gain proficiency in English and improve their reading skills.

From the NVCSA webpageQUOTE]


I agree with the fact that his intentions were to help with literacy skills but, just because his intentions for CS was not to aquire an L1 language doesn't mean that it can't be used as such. If it works, there is no reason for it not to be used as such. Many people's original intentions for their inventions have been changed and those changes have worked successfully.

jillio

[quote=owen06;893878]It wasn't a system designed with language acquisition in mind during the design and implementation. Theefore, it is being promoted as a system for a purpose for which it was not designed. There are too many variables involved in language acquisition that are not addressed by a system such as CS. I have outline some of those for you in another thread addressing CS. "IF" is the key word. CS has not been shown to facilitate language acquistion.

owen06

That's a really interesting article. Too bad they only used it with 4 children. It's hard to make a broad statement regarding it's success with such a small participant base. It doesn't really look like a complete research paper to me. They neglected to add information about controls or specific methods as well as the statisical analysis used. With only 4 participants, they easily could have added these specifics. Without these specifics, another researcher would be unable to replicate the research and unfortunatly if they can't replicate it, the research looses much of it's validity and support.

jillio

This is not a complete research article. It is what is known as a long abstract. Nor is it intended to be a complete research study designed to obtain generalizable results, but is simply a case study done to look at a specific phenomenon in 4 indiviudals. This is the type of study that is done to see if further investigation and research is warranted.

Specifics such as statistical analysis, specific methodology, etc are neve reported in long abstracts, and are reserved to the full research report. And, as with any case study, control groups are not used. You are applying claims that are valid only with research designed using the scientific method. This is another indication that your studies have not advanced beyond an introductory level.

owen06

Which is it...long abstract or case study? They present the material in a partial research format, indicating that it is to be assumed research. If it was a case study there should still be more information and there should still be more specifics. If it's a long abstract, then it can't really be used without the extra information required for a research paper. Abstracts are used to give a brief overview of scientific research being performed (or potentially performed). If there wasn't real research being performed then the whole article needs to be questioned. In either case, that extra information needs to be available somehow. Also, since this hasn't been published in a journal as either a case study or research, it can once again be questioned.

Just because I dissagree with what you think doesn't mean that I'm not as educated. That's making an assumption based on your biases.

jillio

Boy, you are ineperienced. It is a long abstract written for a case study. Case study is the design, long abstract is the written description. You must be a first year student with psych 101 being the only course you've got under your belt. I thought you claimed to have taken advanced courses. Obviously, none of the courses you have taken have been reseach methodology, research design, or technical writing.

Your disagreement with me has nothing to do with my assessment of your knowledge. That is an assessment made from the naivite in your posts. It doesn't have anything to do with bias, but with the lack of in depth knowledge and superficial explanations displayed in your posts.

You, my young friend, attempted to jump into another thread and criticise my post based on your limited knowledge. At that time, I invited to you participate in the discussion as it was related to very specific concepts. You are trying to do so, but have demonstrated that you do not have the knowledge or the experience to criticise any of the posts being made by myself or others. If you would like to increase your knowledge base of psychological, educational, and lingusitic concepts applied to deafness, then stick around and ask questions. We will be glad to share both experience and knowledge with you. However, I would suggest that you approach it as a learning experience, and not an opportunity to display your own new found knowledge.

And, it you were as learned as you would like us to believe, you would realize that you are disagreeing based on extremely limited knowledge of the topics at hand, and therefore, have no valid basis for your disagreement at all.

owen06

I am simply stating the problems with the article.

I HAVE asked questions...look at some of the other posts. Yet no one seems to want to reply to them. Or if they do, the actual questions are skirted. When these questions are ignored I would assume it is because no one knows the answers or if they do, do not like the answers.

I do have a valid dissagreement with the post...it NEEDS more information...or a link to a place where more information is available. Instead I'm supposed to believe that this short article is ok. I've been able to find FULL articles on CS and ASL that demonstrate both the topics effectiveness, some of which have been posted here. I am not disagreeing about the topic, I was disagreeing with the way the material was presented. If it's a case study, I should still be able to access more of the information. The way it's presented in the article isn't enough and there is no additional information on how to access that extra information.

Honestly, your comments about my education are very unnecessary and quite dissrespectful.

jillio

While you may prefer more information, a long abstract is nothing more than a synopsis. It is intended as an introduction. If you wish to have further information, then you utilize the references. Abstracts are intended only to provide you with enough information to see if the entire study is something that would be beneficial to read, or if it is useful to access the article as well as other articles like it for your own research purposes. And the information to access the article as published was made available in the post.

There is a difference between qualitative research and quantitative research, as well as the way in which the results are presented. A case study is a qualitative study, but your objections apply to quantitave research designs. Perhaps, if you wish to reveiw the items you have listed, you would do well to look for quantitative studies that woud either support or refute the qualitative study contained in this report. One study does not contain the all of the answers to all of the questions. One must undertake to access a variety of studies, and not rely on one long abstract to do that. In short, this study complies with the guidelines for a qualitative study, and for the reporting of the results. Just because it doesn't answer all of your questions does not mean it is not valid, nor does that indicate problems within the research design.

Perhaps you feel that my comments about your education are unwarranted; however, you are the one that opened that door. You got off on the wrong foot by making accusations of presumptuousness when you had neither knwoledge of the topic nor of the posters to support your accusation.

Regarding your questions, I have answered any and all questions that you have asked that I have seen, and I have seen the posts of other memebers of this board that have answered your questions, as well.

But there is one question that you have failed to answer repreatedly: what year are you in your studies?

Another question that was asked, and not answered was, what is your connection to the deaf community?

These questions were asked because your posts immediately gave the impression that you were a new college student, and that you have no long term connection to the deaf community, nor any time spent studying deafness from an educational nor a sociological perspective. That is not a criticism....simply an observation. Everyone is a new student at some point, and everyone must start at the beginning. It is only annoying when someone who is at the beginning attempts to protray themselves as further down the road than they actually are. That is the way that you came across. Perhaps you should start over with a different approach.

Regarding your statement of "the problems with the article". it is obvious that you are simply repeating what you have learned in your psych 101 class regarding research, but have not learned the difference between qualitative and quantitative designs, and therefore, are applying what you have leaned incorrectly. I applaud you for trying to apply that which you are learning, but you also need to understand how much more you have to learn.

flip

I agree totally with you. Visual Phonics totally lacks research to prove it's effective. I would be grateful if you could check out the other research on Cued Speech and explain to loml the striking similarities between Visual Phonics and Cued Speech, both in system and the lack of research with validity and support. The biggest difference is perhaps that Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, where CS was invented, ditched it decades ago, and now a couple of adiologists use Visual Phonics instead.

Well, I am just happy I don't have a cued voice in my head saying "ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech ncsa cued speech" and so on...

jillio

I'm not sure that owen06 noted the similarities.

Kaitin

With respect Owen, maybe more people will work to answer you if you join the AD community for more than just arguing. Yes, the arguements are pare of AD. But AD is much more. AD is a community, and I hope you join the community and just the arguements. Maybe if you introduce yourself in the introductions part and even post in some of the funny General Chat people will be more comfortable answering you. JMO.

deafdyke

You know.............if Cued Speech is THE ANSWER, to increased literacy then how come there have been people who have improved it/changed it? I know I've heard about people improving and changing it b/c it doesn't quite fit the needs of many dhh folks.

loml

Deafdyke - What exactly are you reffering to? Please elaborate.

__________________
- Dr. Edward C. Merrill, Jr. past president of Gallaudet

jillio

Visual Phonics is one example of a change. It is based on exactly the same principle as CS...visual phonemic representation of a spoken language.

owen06

Once again, I am not arguing it's possible effectivness, I am simply saying that with the information provided in the piece, you cannot make broad statements regarding it.

1. It has not been published. Most of the other articles on the website have been published and you are provided that information. This article lacks the information or any way to access it because it has not been published.

2. Nowhere in the piece, does it say that Visual Phonics was chosen over Cued Speech. It simply says that it is similar to CS but differs and goes on to explain the differences.

3. flip- in other posts you have suggested people switch over to Visual Phonics yet at the same time you say that it lacks research to prove it's effectiveness. Why would you suggest something that may or may not work with very little evidence to support it?

4. The case study is on four children with down's, not deaf children.

Once again, I'm not arguing the possible effectivness of the tool, I am simply pointing out that the way the article has been presented here is misleading.

Thanks

jillio

Woosley, M.L., Satterfield, S. & Roberson, L. (2006). Visual phonics: An English code buster? [i]American Annals of the Deaf. 51[i](4). pp454-457.

Here's one that can be accessed.

owen06

Thank you, that was really interesting. My argument still hold true though. That article was not a research paper or a case study. I am interested to see where the research will go. The few studies that have been done, have been unable to successfully correlate visual phonics specifically with speech improvement.

From the article jillio provided:

"Their data correlated positively with improved speech production in the student; however, the speech improvement could not be correlated with the intervention of Visual Phonics."

and

"The z scores gathered from the students who received the treatment package were nearly three standard deviations higher than the scores of the comparison group. Since Visual Phonics was part of a treatment package, teasing out the direct effects of Visual Phonics is impossible."



Still, this looks very promising.


Thanks

jillio

YW. I'm glad you found the article interesting. While this was not a research report, it was a literature review, which is based on the compilation of previous research in the field.

Actually, flip and I have been looking at phonetic approaches not as a tool to speech production, but to increased literacy scores.