Has anyone read this new study?

[AlleyCat]

Then you don't understand how an IEP works. We had a traveling TOD going from school to school throughout the day. Not all children go to the deaf school. Do your research! Omg.

 

[seb]

Then you don't understand how an IEP works. We had a traveling TOD going from school to school throughout the day. Not all children go to the deaf school. Do your research! Omg.

Sorry, I should of said through elementary school and since the deaf school was on the same grounds as a hearing school, they were all mainstreamed with interpreters for part of the day. Once they reached high school they had TOD for some classes and were then mainstreamed in others with interpreters if they needed them.

Having taught Industrial Arts for five years in the public schools I know quite well how an IEP works. For your information IA is a dumping ground for children with emotional and various learning disabilities. I never had a TOD in any of my classes even though I did have several students who were HOH. I was lucky if I got a Spanish or Vietnamese interpreter in my class for one day a week to help in translating English into their native languages. One year I had 28 Hispanic students in one class and none really spoke English very well, in another I had 15 Hispanic, 7 Vietnamese, 2 Arabic and 4 kids whose native tongue was English. Talking about challenging, all you can do is give a lot of demonstrations, watch them like a hawk and hope that they understand what you want them to do. For my emotionally troubled kids most had "babysitters" who went from class to class with each student 5 days a week, 36 weeks a year and tried to keep the kids on task. For the kids who had IEP's I only had to attend the child's initial meeting at the beginning of each semester and I would be informed if any changes needed to be made in how the child was being taught to help them reach the goals of their IEP. Being that my class was an elective and pretty much hands on (woodshop), this rarely happened.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Call any school district. I had an IEP during my years. I'm certain one phone call could have identified the teachers.

(I edited this post a bit. To take me out of being assigned to me.)

It would be inappropriate for someone to call and ask a teacher about the students on their caseload. I would never answer questions about my students like that.

 

[DeafDucky]

I don't think she meant that to call and ask specifically who your students are. I would think one could call and find out the type of teachers that work at the school and perhaps the GENERAL population they teach- not who each kid is specifically! How else can parents do research on schools they'd like to send their kids to? Knowing what the teachers teach (if they teach more than one subject), what any self contained classroom is like, the general make-up of the class (say...if there is an even mix of CI users and ASL users or something).

Round and round we go. I'll just wait for the "YOU'RE WRONG!" comment.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

I don't think she meant that to call and ask specifically who your students are. I would think one could call and find out the type of teachers that work at the school and perhaps the GENERAL population they teach- not who each kid is specifically! How else can parents do research on schools they'd like to send their kids to? Knowing what the teachers teach (if they teach more than one subject), what any self contained classroom is like, the general make-up of the class (say...if there is an even mix of CI users and ASL users or something).

Round and round we go. I'll just wait for the "YOU'RE WRONG!" comment.

Parents would absolutely have the opportunity to visit a school and program. They would make arrangements with the administration and get a tour. A stranger on the phone would get no such thing. I would never attempt to call a school and ask a teacher of the deaf that I do not know about his/her caseload. That is unprofessional and completely inappropriate. I am a member of a few groups for teachers of the deaf including one for my alumni group.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Here is another study that says that a child benefiting from signing (called sign enhancement) was negatively correlated with higher levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy in high school (meaning they were less likely to be in the normal range).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156988/

 

[AmputeeOT]

Here is another study that says that a child benefiting from signing (called sign enhancement) was negatively correlated with higher levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy in high school (meaning they were less likely to be in the normal range).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156988/

Same deal. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Of course kids who have lower levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy are more likely to use sign language. This does not mean sign language CAUSED the delays.

In fact it's just as likely to be the opposite and makes more logical sense that it would be the opposite. The language delays caused the use of sign languge.

 

[AmputeeOT]

In fact the study even states this outright (bolding added):

"The design of this study does not allow us to determine causality among variables but rather to explore the influence of variables on communication outcomes in young adolescents."

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Same deal. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Of course kids who have lower levels of speech perception, speech intelligibility, language and literacy are more likely to use sign language. This does not mean sign language CAUSED the delays.

In fact it's just as likely to be the opposite and makes more logical sense that it would be the opposite. The language delays caused the use of sign languge.

Then why, in the original study, did none of the children who did not sign start signing? None of the spoken language only students needed to add sign.

 

[deafdyke]

Teacher of the Deaf, You keep claiming that oral deaf kids are doing so well. They might be doing slightly better in terms of speech skills, but this study proves that while they can learn to talk, they still are unable to delvelop SOPHISTICATED spoken language. Basicly they're still "hitting the oral deaf ceiling" https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/66509 The ONLY way a child does better orally is by not counting vocabulary. I believe the preeminent study by Dr. Christine Yoshinaga-Itano that claimed kids were doing better speechwise, did not count vocab. But you cannot say that you've had a command of language (ANY language) by not counting vocabulary, since that is the BASIS of language.

 

[AmputeeOT]

Then why, in the original study, did none of the children who did not sign start signing? None of the spoken language only students needed to add sign.

Maybe because their audiologists or teacher's of the deaf strongly discouraged it.

Maybe because our hearing society devalues signed language over spoken language.

Or maybe, like the study suggests: "presumably because their child’s listening and spoken language skills continued to develop."

My husband is profoundly Deaf from birth. He very literally cannot speak more than a few intelligible words, cannot listen and cannot read lips. ASL is his L1 and written English is his L2.

His mother barely signs and his dad knows no sign. Many of his friends grew up in situations where their parents never learned any sign at all. Those kids cannot understand spoken English, do not have the capacity to learn spoken English, and their parents don't sign. This happend because audiologists, people working with Deaf children, and TOD told them that if they signed their children would never learn how to speak.

This is horrific.

 

[seb]

Maybe because their audiologists or teacher's of the deaf strongly discouraged it.

Maybe because our hearing society devalues signed language over spoken language.

Or maybe, like the study suggests: "presumably because their child’s listening and spoken language skills continued to develop."


My husband is profoundly Deaf from birth. He very literally cannot speak more than a few intelligible words, cannot listen and cannot read lips. ASL is his L1 and written English is his L2.

His mother barely signs and his dad knows no sign. Many of his friends grew up in situations where their parents never learned any sign at all. Those kids cannot understand spoken English, do not have the capacity to learn spoken English, and their parents don't sign. This happend because audiologists, people working with Deaf children, and TOD told them that if they signed their children would never learn how to speak.

This is horrific.

The first three sentences are complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.

As to your husband, we are talking about different times and my guess is pre CI. Also his parents were hearing, so he was already behind the eight ball as to he and his parents getting up to speed in learning and using sign language to communicate in the critical first two years of his life. So how exactly did he and his parents communicate? Also at what age did his parents realize he couldn't hear? Prior to mandatory screenings at birth in the US in the 1990's many children were not found to be HOH until they were past the age of two which puts them at a severe disadvantage in learning language, since by the age of two most hearing children can understand between one and two thousand words and by the age of 5, it's at 5,000. So as to his parents and his friends parents shame on them for not being willing to put in the time to learn to communicate with their children.

 

[AmputeeOT]

This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.

This is why I said:

MAYBE

I said maybe because those first two "maybe's" at the top isn't based on any information in the study, and is just speculation to answer ToD's question. So yes, the first two "maybe's" were conjecture.

However it is not "complete conjecture" to state this:

The study suggests: "presumably because their child’s listening and spoken language skills continued to develop."

- The study actually said that, and I actually quoted it.

My husband is profoundly Deaf from birth. He very literally cannot speak more than a few intelligible words, cannot listen and cannot read lips. ASL is his L1 and written English is his L2.

- This is actually an actual thing that happened to my actual husband.

His mother barely signs and his dad knows no sign. Many of his friends grew up in situations where their parents never learned any sign at all. Those kids cannot understand spoken English, do not have the capacity to learn spoken English, and their parents don't sign. This happend because audiologists, people working with Deaf children, and TOD told them that if they signed their children would never learn how to speak.

- This is actual information based on actual lived experience.

This is horrific.

- Yes, this is merely my opinion.

 

[Beowulf]

This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.

*facepalm*

 

[Barbaro]

The sign languages used were: "ASL, Total/Simultaneous Communication, baby sign, Signing Exact English, Signed English, sign language, sign support, or Pidgin sign." "A child was classified as positive for sign language exposure at that rating period if one of the following systems was reported by a parent as used at least 10% of the time at home and/or in the child’s intervention program."

No, you misunderstood. I asked a question- how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only? My original question is not about how much they use one of those "systems" at home and/or in the child's intervention program.

"ASL, Total/Simultaneous Communication, baby sign, Signing Exact English, Signed English, sign language, sign support, or Pidgin sign."

"A child was classified as positive for sign language exposure at that rating period if one of the following systems was reported by a parent as used at least 10% of the time at home and/or in the child’s intervention program."

First and second quotes from the study remain unclear. It says "or" and "one of the following systems". Ann Geers should have rewritten that line- and/or instead of or. Supposedly, does it mean one of those subjects in the study used ONE system of SEE or ASL? That is the problem. I assume you have no experience in any sign language. In the general D/HH program schools throughout the US, those subjects are taught with SEE, PSE or TC in the classes, but on the recess and lunch breaks, children become careless and free and can make the transition easily from SEE to PSE or ASL in one second. It's very common. I am one of them. They still do it today. I've seen them myself. I was invited a few times to talk about my job at charter school and public schools and interacted with deaf/HH kids via "sign language." Let me get more specific about what "sign language" is. I communicated with them via ASL during the breaks. Teachers in the controlled environment usually use SEE and PSE to teach their students.

If I were Ann Geers, I would record videos of subjects interacting with their parents and teachers at home and/or in the child's intervention program and breaks. Questionnaires from parents are insufficient to make it case.

This is all complete conjecture on your part unless you actually have some actual proof.

You accused her of making up the story about her own mother-in-law barely signs? Her father-in-law doesn't know sign? Just like you accused me of making up stories and you're evading my questions. I don't see any point in discussing it with you, because you chose to not answer my question. Your previous posts with others lead me to believe your posts are unreliable. And you're losing credibility. I am done.

Saludos.

 

[seb]

No, you misunderstood. I asked a question- how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only? My original question is not about how much they use one of those "systems" at home and/or in the child's intervention program.

"ASL, Total/Simultaneous Communication, baby sign, Signing Exact English, Signed English, sign language, sign support, or Pidgin sign."

"A child was classified as positive for sign language exposure at that rating period if one of the following systems was reported by a parent as used at least 10% of the time at home and/or in the child’s intervention program."

First and second quotes from the study remain unclear. It says "or" and "one of the following systems". Ann Geers should have rewritten that line- and/or instead of or. Supposedly, does it mean one of those subjects in the study used ONE system of SEE or ASL? That is the problem. I assume you have no experience in any sign language. In the general D/HH program schools throughout the US, those subjects are taught with SEE, PSE or TC in the classes, but on the recess and lunch breaks, children become careless and free and can make the transition easily from SEE to PSE or ASL in one second. It's very common. I am one of them. They still do it today. I've seen them myself. I was invited a few times to talk about my job at charter school and public schools and interacted with deaf/HH kids via "sign language." Let me get more specific about what "sign language" is. I communicated with them via ASL during the breaks. Teachers in the controlled environment usually use SEE and PSE to teach their students.

If I were Ann Geers, I would record videos of subjects interacting with their parents and teachers at home and/or in the child's intervention program and breaks. Questionnaires from parents are insufficient to make it case.



You accused her of making up the story about her own mother-in-law barely signs? Her father-in-law doesn't know sign? Just like you accused me of making up stories and you're evading my questions. I don't see any point in discussing it with you, because you chose to not answer my question. Your previous posts with others lead me to believe your posts are unreliable. And you're losing credibility. I am done.

Saludos.

You asked the question: " how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only?" and I gave you word for word what the study said to answer your question. How would I know how many used ASL when the study said what I quoted?

As to Ann Geers video taping her subjects interacting with their parents, I would be surprised if she didn't do just that. Perhaps you can write to her and ask her if she has the tapes?

What I should of said was the first three sentences of what she said was purely conjecture on her part and I will go back and edit it to say just that.

 

[AmputeeOT]

Yes it was conjecture. It was actually intentionally conjecture.

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.

 

[seb]

Yes it was conjecture. It was actually intentionally conjecture.

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.

Well then, what your saying is that if the data shows that using sign language is good than the results are accurate and okay, but if a study comes along saying the opposite is true than the results can't be right or they made a mistake along the way. I get it now.

 

[AmputeeOT]

Well then, what your saying is that if the data shows that using sign language is good than the results are accurate and okay, but if a study comes along saying the opposite is true than the results can't be right or they made a mistake along the way. I get it now.

Not at all. I am saying:

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.

Maybe my English was not clear. Perhaps this is better:

The "results" and discussion of this study are also conjecture. The data may be correct but the conclusions drawn by the authors of this study from the data are conjecture. That's why the study is problematic.

 

[Barbaro]

You asked the question: " how many kids (subjects) in the study are exposed to ASL only?" and I gave you word for word what the study said to answer your question. How would I know how many used ASL when the study said what I quoted?

As to Ann Geers video taping her subjects interacting with their parents, I would be surprised if she didn't do just that. Perhaps you can write to her and ask her if she has the tapes?

What I should of said was the first three sentences of what she said was purely conjecture on her part and I will go back and edit it to say just that.

You knew that if authors set up the videotape of subjects, they are required to report information based on a video analysis. If authors did this, it should be reported in the study. They already have analyzed parents' interviews, which is a part of the study, so they could provide the data based on that.

I hope you've done thesis reports during your college days.