We Need Current Info Before Writing Off Cochlear Implants

[deafdyke]

the same educational and language acquisition difficulties are still being experienced by deaf kids all over the US.

Excellent point jillo!
Yes, there are kids who are doing REALLY well speechwise........but I mean....how many kids graduate from (as in don't need it any more) speech therapy? What's the percentage of kids who do really really well?
Are the kids who do well, the ones who would have done well in any sitution? There have ALWAYS been kids who have done well. Even back in the one room schoolhouses or before there was special ed law!
In addition, I think that part of the reason why CIs might appear to be more sucessful is b/c, the research indicates that kids who heard for a time, (even as babies) tend to be better CI users, then do kids who never were able to hear.
Also, the defintion of sucess varies tremeodunsly...........even over at HealthyNormal Hearing Exchange, they admit that sucess is different for different people. Like someone might only be able to hear enviromental sounds, and that would be a sucess for them, but another person's sucess would be completely different!

 

[Cloggy]

I understand, I am not writing off cochlear implants, but you have to understand one thing, those who received cochlear implant at the younger age, some of them have not learned sign language or continue to use sign language, because parents don't think it was/is even necessary. ..........

Is it really necessary to be able to sign. ?????
Many deaf people never learned, and they do well.

So, although sign can add a lot to the communication, it is not a necessity.
Lotte knew sign, and hardly uses it any more, because she will speak.
Only when she doesn't know the word, but knows the sign she will use the sign, or sometimes explaining something.

But the real need is not there any more.

It might come back again, when she does some "soul-searching" and we will welcome it.

And she's not special. She's just like any other kid with CI.. They can communicate without sign..

 

[jillio]

Is it really necessary to be able to sign. ?????
Many deaf people never learned, and they do well.

So, although sign can add a lot to the communication, it is not a necessity.
Lotte knew sign, and hardly uses it any more, because she will speak.
Only when she doesn't know the word, but knows the sign she will use the sign, or sometimes explaining something.

But the real need is not there any more.

It might come back again, when she does some "soul-searching" and we will welcome it.

And she's not special. She's just like any other kid with CI.. They can communicate without sign..

"Only when she doesn't know the word,but knows the sign she will use the sign, or somethimes explaining something." Doesn't that tell you something, Cloggy? When she is not able to effectively communicate with her oral skills, she relies on sign. That is the distinction. Okay communication vs effective communication, and it is effective communication that is absolutely necessary for educational and social purposes. Without effective communication, a child is restricted in opportunity.

 

[ismi]

"Only when she doesn't know the word,but knows the sign she will use the sign, or somethimes explaining something." Doesn't that tell you something, Cloggy? When she is not able to effectively communicate with her oral skills, she relies on sign. That is the distinction. Okay communication vs effective communication, and it is effective communication that is absolutely necessary for educational and social purposes. Without effective communication, a child is restricted in opportunity.

That's actually pretty normal behavior for any child who is bilingual, even if they're 'fluent' in both. That one of the languages is signed isn't necessarily relevant.

 

[jillio]

That's actually pretty normal behavior for any child who is bilingual, even if they're 'fluent' in both. That one of the languages is signed isn't necessarily relevant.

What is relevant is that the child will revert back to the L1 language in times of stress or confusion. L1 as in native.

 

[shel90]

What is relevant is that the child will revert back to the L1 language in times of stress or confusion. L1 as in native.

From my understanding, I don't think Cloggy's daughter is fluent in sign language so are u referring to his daughter or any bilingual children in general?

 

[Cloggy]

"Only when she doesn't know the word,but knows the sign she will use the sign, or somethimes explaining something." Doesn't that tell you something, Cloggy? When she is not able to effectively communicate with her oral skills, she relies on sign. That is the distinction. Okay communication vs effective communication, and it is effective communication that is absolutely necessary for educational and social purposes. Without effective communication, a child is restricted in opportunity.

And when she doesn't know the sign, she'll use the word....

Does that tell you anything ??????

 

[Cheri]

Is it really necessary to be able to sign. ?????

Yes, I do believe so.

Many deaf people never learned, and they do well.

And many deaf people never learned to speak, yet they have some difficulties communicate in the hearing world, Just the same applies with CI person would have some difficulties communicate in a deaf world without signs. Why not learn both? Make it easier and simple? Are you preventing her from learning signs because she can speak? What's so wrong with using both methods?

 

[Angel]

So many people who say they are against CI's don't take the time to educate themselves before hand, simply tossing things they heard others say, or outright making things up. For example so many ask "well why can't you just use hearing aids instead of CI's?" without realizing that a child who CAN benefit from a hearing aid is NOT a candidate for a Ci anyway.

Not only what they heard but what they read too...

 

[jillio]

From my understanding, I don't think Cloggy's daughter is fluent in sign language so are u referring to his daughter or any bilingual children in general?

Actually, shel, I was refering to bilingual children in general. And even though Cloggy's daughter is not fluent in sign, neither is she fluent in oral language. And as she was not implanted and able to perceive auditory stimuli from birth, visual understanding serves as the base to which she returns when oral skills fail her.

 

[jillio]

And when she doesn't know the sign, she'll use the word....

Does that tell you anything ??????

Come on Cloggy--you just said that she prefers to communicate orally and only uses sign when she doesn't know a word. You can't reverse the process now.

 

[shel90]

Come on Cloggy--you just said that she prefers to communicate orally and only uses sign when she doesn't know a word. You can't reverse the process now.

Yea I was thinking the same thing. I am confused by this argument..the child prefers not to sign and doesn't use it anymore so why would the child need to say the words for signs she doesn't know? Iam totally lost and confused. Can u or Cloggy clear it up for me to what's the point of the discussion?

 

[jillio]

Yea I was thinking the same thing. I am confused by this argument..the child prefers not to sign and doesn't use it anymore so why would the child need to say the words for signs she doesn't know? Iam totally lost and confused. Can u or Cloggy clear it up for me to what's the point of the discussion?

I guess Cloggy will have to clear this one up, because I read it the same way you do--she doesn't need sign, but she uses it when oral communication fails her.

 

[ismi]

I lived in Germany for a while when I was a little kid, and spoke German at home, because it was what everyone around me was speaking (although I could have used English with my parents, since that was their native language, I didn't). When I didn't know a word in German, I clarified in English, then switched back to German. After moving back to the US, I switched to speaking English at home, and rarely spoke German. *But*, despite English being my first language, I still used German now and then when I didn't know the English equivalent.

So although it could be that you're right and Cloggy's daughter needs a visual language, this behavior is not itself evidence of that.

 

[Drew's Dad]

I guess Cloggy will have to clear this one up, because I read it the same way you do--she doesn't need sign, but she uses it when oral communication fails her.

I don't read her post as contradictory at all.

Not knowing a word, or not knowing how to say a word does not mean that "oral communication fails her".

Similarly, just because I don't know 99% of ASL does not mean that communication through sign "fails" me. It only means that I don't know ASL.

 

[jillio]

I lived in Germany for a while when I was a little kid, and spoke German at home, because it was what everyone around me was speaking (although I could have used English with my parents, since that was their native language, I didn't). When I didn't know a word in German, I clarified in English, then switched back to German. After moving back to the US, I switched to speaking English at home, and rarely spoke German. *But*, despite English being my first language, I still used German now and then when I didn't know the English equivalent.

So although it could be that you're right and Cloggy's daughter needs a visual language, this behavior is not itself evidence of that.

If she didn't need a visual language, she would not be using sign to cover the gaps in fluency. She would simply use her knowlege of oral language to explain for which she had no word. A child who is hearing and relies solely on oral language will simply substitute a word, or combine words to cover those gaps, not revert to a differennt language. It also indicates that she possesses understanding on a visual level that she does not possess on an auditory verbal level.

 

[jillio]

I don't read her post as contradictory at all.

Not knowing a word, or not knowing how to say a word does not mean that "oral communication fails her".

Similarly, just because I don't know 99% of ASL does not mean that communication through sign "fails" me. It only means that I don't know ASL.

And you are not deaf, so the issue is moot whether or not you use sign. You are able to gain all the information you need auditorily.

 

[Endymion]

This may be a stretch, and I haven't read much of this conversation beyond the initial post, but I'll try to respond.

I think that "success" is a very ambiguous word. You want to talk about improvement in opportunities with hearing people who don't have the time to try and slow down for deaf people (like a business customer you're trying to sell to), improvement in earnings, improvement in so-and-so, you can talk about success. On the other hand, if you're talking about the CI as a cure-all, you're going to run into problems with that definition of success.

The problem, I find, is that both the poster and the reader don't have the same definition of success. What may be successful to the poster might actually be failure to the reader. This discrepancy leads to a misunderstanding, especially when the poster convinces the reader of her message.

You might want to communicate with posters and see what their definition of success is. The impact of the implant is multidimensional, and I think to condense it all into a success-failure nomenclature is misleading.

Hope that offers some insight.

 

[shel90]

And you are not deaf, so the issue is moot whether or not you use sign. You are able to gain all the information you need auditorily.

Right..deaf people have that risk of not developing a full language if not exposed to a visual language which is a completely different situation than hearing people who switches from one language to another when they don't know a word or a phrase. I don't think they really get it. Hearing people don't have that risk of being delayed in language development so I do not really understand the comparision between deaf and hearing children when it comes to access to language unless they see those kids as hearing themselves? I don't even feel like debating nor sharing my experiences with people who are admadant with their beliefs. If they don't want to take deaf people's experiences or hearing people who have deaf relative's experiences whether positive or negative to help them be aware of any situations or issues that can pop up with their children, I don't see the point. I will just continue my work with those who are language delayed and hope they will find the same success as their children. They think we keep talking about their children but we r talking about the significant risk for any deaf children. If their children are perfectly happy having no ties to the deaf community and not needing sign, then I would think they have nothing to worry about, right?

 

[shel90]

This may be a stretch, and I haven't read much of this conversation beyond the initial post, but I'll try to respond.

I think that "success" is a very ambiguous word. You want to talk about improvement in opportunities with hearing people who don't have the time to try and slow down for deaf people (like a business customer you're trying to sell to), improvement in earnings, improvement in so-and-so, you can talk about success. On the other hand, if you're talking about the CI as a cure-all, you're going to run into problems with that definition of success.

The problem, I find, is that both the poster and the reader don't have the same definition of success. What may be successful to the poster might actually be failure to the reader. This discrepancy leads to a misunderstanding, especially when the poster convinces the reader of her message.

You might want to communicate with posters and see what their definition of success is. The impact of the implant is multidimensional, and I think to condense it all into a success-failure nomenclature is misleading.

Hope that offers some insight.

yes, it offers a lot of insight for me at least. All I just want all deaf children to have both a visual and auditory language to ensure that they dont get delayed in language development and grow up to be the best they can be. I want to eliminate that risk. I just spoke with one of the parents of one of my students who has a CI...they said they tried taking him to speech therapy and talking with him all times as suggested by the speech therapist and they found out when their son was around 4 years old, that he wasnt picking up as fast as they thought...to me that is the risk I am talking about..how do we know if the child is picking up on spoken language fully during their early years? I just hate the thought of "finding" out that the child is or is not picking up on spoken language when they are almost past the critical stage of language development. That's all but I am sure I am "biased" so it is not really important, then.