Some thoughts?

[faire_jour]

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg -- Mode of Communication and Classroom Placement Impact on Speech Intelligibility, May 2004, Tobey et al. 130 (5): 639

"In summary, higher speech intelligibility scores acquired in 8- to 9-year-old congenitally deafened cochlear implant recipients were associated with educational settings that emphasize oral communication development and placement with hearing peers. Less accurate speech intelligibility scores at 8 to 9 years of age were associated with educational programs that emphasize the development of language via signs and placement in special education classes. "

The whole article is there for people to peruse.

I think this would be in direct opposition to the idea that signing has no effect on speech development.

 

[jillio]

In fact, studies of deaf children relying on oral communication and attending mainstream schools show a marked lack of social integration. Although
the academic performance of mainstreamed deaf children often equals the performance of their hearing peers (Wray, Flexer, & Vaccaro, 1997), deaf students report being lonely and lacking close friendships in these settings (Stinson & Whitmire, 1992) and many prefer to socialize with other children who have a hearing loss (Roberts & Rickards, 1994). These outcomes may be due to deaf children’s ongoing difficulty with producing intelligible speech
and with their ability to understand others’ verbal communication, resulting in limited understanding how others think and feel.

A child with a hearing loss may have a reduced ability to acquire social skills, such as turn taking, that underlie social functioning (Marschark, 1993).
Recent research on the theory of mind illustrates some of the mechanisms affecting language and socialization development. Early exposure to conversations plays a crucial role in the ability to attribute psychological states, including emotion, motivation, and reasoning, to others (Astington &
Jenkins, 1999). Studies show that deaf children with early access to signed conversation display theory of mind on par with their hearing peers, whereas children relying exclusively on oral language frequently
manifest delays (Courtin & Melot, 1998; Figuears- Costa & Harris, 2001; Woolfe, Want, & Siegal, 2002).

Bat-Chava, Y., Martin, D., & kosciw, J.G. ( ). Longitudinal improvements in communication and socialization of deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (12), 1287-1296.

 

[faire_jour]

Ok, those are about socialization, not speech. correct?

 

[jillio]

Ok, those are about socialization, not speech. correct?

Uh, no. Your abstract was about speech intelligibility. My excerpt specifically refers to speech intelligibility and the wide reaching effects that have been seen longitudinally in deaf children with both CIs and HAs that are exposed to oral only environments based on deficits in speech intelligibility.

I will isolate the important statement from the above excerpt for you:

Studies show that deaf children with early access to signed conversation display theory of mind on par with their hearing peers, whereas children relying exclusively on oral language frequently
manifest delays

 

[faire_jour]

I understand. I also understand that my study showed that kids in non-signing school enviroments have better speech than those in signing placements.

The thread is to discuss that. Feel free to post research about speech and signing. We are not dicussing "theory of mind".

I had always heard that signing does not interfere with speech development. This article says otherwise. I would like to discuss that.

 

[jillio]

I understand. I also understand that my study showed that kids in non-signing school enviroments have better speech than those in signing placements.

The thread is to discuss that. Feel free to post research about speech and signing. We are not dicussing "theory of mind".

I had always heard that signing does not interfere with speech development. This article says otherwise. I would like to discuss that.

No, it didn't. It referred to speech intelligibility, not production. Theory of mind is directly related to language development. Without language development, speech is useless. A parrot can repeat phrases, but it cannot use those phrases to form cognitions. A child needs to be able to do more than repeat words. They have to be able to use those words to relate to the world around them, empathize with others, and develop fluid thought. So theory of mind is most certainly a pertinent topic, as well as a related one. The research I have posted directly refutes that which you have posted.

 

[faire_jour]

No, it didn't. It referred to speech intelligibility, not production. Theory of mind is directly related to language development. Without language development, speech is useless. A parrot can repeat phrases, but it cannot use those phrases to form cognitions. A child needs to be able to do more than repeat words. They have to be able to use those words to relate to the world around them, empathize with others, and develop fluid thought. So theory of mind is most certainly a pertinent topic, as well as a related one. The research I have posted directly refutes that which you have posted.

Speech intelligiblity is one part of spoken language development, so it is valid to say that perhaps the idea that sign does not interfere in any way with spoken language is at least questionable.

 

[Babyblue]

No, it didn't. It referred to speech intelligibility, not production. Theory of mind is directly related to language development. Without language development, speech is useless. A parrot can repeat phrases, but it cannot use those phrases to form cognitions. A child needs to be able to do more than repeat words. They have to be able to use those words to relate to the world around them, empathize with others, and develop fluid thought. So theory of mind is most certainly a pertinent topic, as well as a related one. The research I have posted directly refutes that which you have posted.

One can sit in front of a speech therapist and learn how to say the words the right way.

but to actually know the meanings of the word......

ASL, early development. Early understanding. Children and even Infants can pick up on that before they can even speak.

This is getting interesting!!

 

[faire_jour]

One can sit in front of a speech therapist and learn how to say the words the right way.

but to actually know the meanings of the word......

ASL, early development. Early understanding. Children and even Infants can pick up on that before they can even speak.

This is getting interesting!!

I have stated that it is a given that ASL helps with language acquistion. I want to discuss speech.

It has been said here, time and again, that ASL does not interfere with speech. This study says otherwise.

We are discussing that.

 

[Babyblue]

Speech intelligiblity is one part of spoken language development, so it is valid to say that perhaps the idea that sign does not interfere in any way with spoken language is at least questionable.

This is what gets my goat. A lot of people wants to blame the language delays on ASL. The delay is that the child could not hear, and did not have access to ANY form of language.

 

[faire_jour]

This is what gets my goat. A lot of people wants to blame the language delays on ASL. The delay is that the child could not hear, and did not have access to ANY form of language.

No. This is a direct comparison of TC kids to oral kids. In speech intelligibilty the oral kids did better than TC kids. I am not discussing language or language delays, just speech.

 

[Babyblue]

No. This is a direct comparison of TC kids to oral kids. In speech intelligibilty the oral kids did better than TC kids. I am not discussing language or language delays, just speech.

HUH?

Speech!?! You are in for a long trip. If you are expecting your child to have perfect speech. I would be less worried about that and more concerned for language skills. I don't know what your motive is for "speech" but this is something else!

I was raised orally and had speech therapy for years and years.


I am HOH with bilateral hearing loss. Two hearing aids growing up. Grew up as a non signer. Did not learn ASL until 1989.

My speech is still not perfect, I still mispronounce words or not "say them correctly" and I still have a deaf voice.

 

[KarissaMann05]

This is what gets my goat. A lot of people wants to blame the language delays on ASL. The delay is that the child could not hear, and did not have access to ANY form of language.

Yes, excatly.

Melissa, my former classmate, from my old elementary school, is deaf, yet grew up both sign and speech, he did write and speak pretty well.

I hate to say, I have to agree with Jillio and BabyBlue.

 

[faire_jour]

HUH?

Speech!?! You are in for a long trip. If you are expecting your child to have perfect speech. I would be less worried about that and more concerned for language skills. I don't know what your motive is for "speech" but this is something else!

I was raised orally and had speech therapy for years and years.


I am HOH with bilateral hearing loss. Two hearing aids growing up. Grew up as a non signer. Did not learn ASL until 1989.

My speech is still not perfect, I still mispronounce words or not "say them correctly" and I still have a deaf voice.

My daughter uses ASL. She was born hearing, lost it quickly and now has a CI.

It is said here, a lot, that ASL doesn't impede speech. I am attempting to discuss whether or not that is true.

 

[faire_jour]

Yes, excatly.

Melissa, my former classmate, from my old elementary school, is deaf, yet grew up both sign and speech, he did write and speak pretty well.

I hate to say, I have to agree with Jillio and BabyBlue.

Not with the research, but with their opinion? Ok.

 

[Bottesini]

My daughter uses ASL. She was born hearing, lost it quickly and now has a CI.

It is said here, a lot, that ASL doesn't impede speech. I am attempting to discuss whether or not that is true.

So you want to blame ASL because your daughter is one of the non speakers?

 

[KarissaMann05]

Not with the research, but with their opinion? Ok.

Well, I like to remind you about damienmommy's thread.

I don't like it when stupid oral stuff tried to push in deaf progarm to have a speech and CI. I witnessed some interprers who were really tried of all this crappy things. Melika already stated it. That is why they ARE STILL deny ASL and sign languages, and all anything...

 

[faire_jour]

So you want to blame ASL because your daughter is one of the non speakers?

Oh my god, now I'm pissed.

No, my daughter is actually doing very very well with her CI. She is speaking better than EVERY student in her school, and she has had it for 2 months.

I am TRYING to discuss research, done by professionals, reviewed and published by experts, that I happened to come across and wanted opinions on. Why does it always turn into blame games?

 

[dreama]

It's sad when people emphasis so much on speech. I also don't trust any reasearch that claim that ASL delays speech. It just goes against logic.

People say have really good speech. What good does it do? Since I still have problems expressing exactly what I want to say at times.

 

[faire_jour]

Well, I like to remind you about damienmommy's thread.

I don't like it when stupid oral stuff tried to push in deaf progarm to have a speech and CI. I witnessed some interprers who were really tried of all this crappy things. Melika already stated it. That is why they ARE STILL deny ASL and sign languages, and all anything...

Deaf programs are going to have to adapt. CI's are here, they aren't going away, and they actually work. If Deaf schools don't learn how to educate these students, their enrollment is going to fall even further.