Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

DeafCaroline said:
The impression I got from Kokonut's blog is that he thinks Deaf people give deaf people like him a bad name.
Click to expand...

How so? A pretty strange conclusion if you ask me. People have all kinds of opinions about me, good and bad. :dunno:

I don't know what your beef is.
 
GrendelQ said:
Some of the most respected researchers in deaf ed say that there don't exist valid studies supporting the claim that Deaf of Deaf outperform Deaf of Hearing in reading comprehension or other indicators of literacy. In "Psychological development of deaf children" Marschark reviewed the conflicting studies conducted on deaf of deaf vs. deaf of hearing and conducted an assessment of the results, and an answer. There are studies that "show" that deaf of hearing outperform, and studies that "show" that deaf of deaf outperform. But, he summarized by saying that the findings were inconclusive, there didn't seem to be an advantage either way.

What's critical, though, is that 50% of 18YO Deaf & HOH students read below the 4th grade level (equiv. to a 9YO), compared with 1% of their hearing peers. Think about this -- these adults with low literacy are not good reading models for their children -- deaf or hearing. This cycle is what affects literacy -- it's so very complex, but in general, deaf children who read better had their hearing losses diagnosed earlier, had early access to fluent language (usually via sign language), and were exposed to English.

If you are interested in the subject, take a look at Marschark's Raising and educating a deaf child: a comprehensive guide to the choices, controversies, and decisions faced by parents and educators -- 2nd edition, the Learning to Read and Write section.
Click to expand...

already disgustingly wrong............ and there's a discussion to boot.

sigh......
 
I'm reading right now about Sweden's implementation of bilingualism for the Deaf in the education system. What I really loved learning was that Swedish CI doctors greatly encourage parents to learn sign with their kids before implantation and that the claims that babies must be implanted right away to keep their auditory nerve stimulated is misleading because there is hardly a significantly incremental difference between implanted babies and those implanted at a later age. Very interesting!

I also appreciated learning that teachers wanting to be Educators for the Deaf have to be expertly fluent first before teaching the Deaf. It's absolutely mandatory. Very smart criteria.

Changes in Teacher Education:

"Within that context, they are having a big challenge from the cochlear implant movement. Still different than here, though. There are only 2 doctors in Sweden who do implants, and they recommmend that the family and child first learn sign language and become well-acquianted with deaf people and support from other parents before they proceed. The danger in that is that some of the audiologists are promoting a bilingual--sign language plus Swedish through implants--panacea. Which is it not. Careful study of the research shows that when separated out from post-lingually deafened children, the results for pre-lingually deaf implanted children show minute gains in small aspects of production and perception, but no evidence of intelligible speech or increase in mean length of utterance that is greater than that seen through maturation and training. Two Swedish reserachers have just surveyed the literature and found--as did Harlan Lane in his recent letter in the Journal of Otolarygology--that claims about implants in pre-lingually deaf children are very misleading. What is different there is that I see a greater level of outrage and involvement in fighting this threat among teachers, parents, and especially the deaf association. There is no question among those involved with teaching deaf children that they don't want cochlear implants to result in a denial of the linguistic rights of deaf children. Again, a sign to me that support for sign language is alive and well among those who have an opportunity to observe children growing up well-adjusted and increasingly more literate."
 
DeafCaroline said:
I'm reading right now about Sweden's implementation of bilingualism for the Deaf in the education system. What I really loved learning was that Swedish CI doctors greatly encourage parents to learn sign with their kids before implantation and that the claims that babies must be implanted right away to keep their auditory nerve stimulated is misleading because there is hardly a significantly incremental difference between implanted babies and those implanted at a later age. Very interesting!
Click to expand...

Take a look at this RIT paper: Cochlear implants in the deaf community: Current circumstances of cochlear implant users among the deaf youth in Sweden's educational system by Christopher Samp that came out in the past year, some 5+ years after your blogger's opinion -- it addresses the current state of Sweden's deaf community and education system and you might find it relevant to your research.

Also, see pg 53 for the start of a section addressing your statement about early implantation. There is consensus among researchers that implanting at a young age improves speech perception and production more than those implanted later in life, as well as providing several other significant linguistic benefits, including several in the area of literacy.
 
Ok, reading it now. It wasn't a "blogger's" opinion, he posted a paper submitted by Shawn Mahshie, author of "Educating Deaf Children Bilingually" - this guy extensively studied the Swedish model and so much so that the Swedish has asked him to translate their documents into English for more and more English speaking parents have become very interested. Will get back to you once I've gone through your link.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Ok, reading it now. It wasn't a "blogger's" opinion, he posted a paper submitted by Shawn Mahshie, author of "Educating Deaf Children Bilingually" - this guy extensively studied the Swedish model and so much so that the Swedish has asked him to translate their documents into English for more and more English speaking parents have become very interested. Will get back to you once I've gone through your link.
Click to expand...

I didn't see a name of a paper or source from somewhere else or any research backing up any statements, as in a submitted paper, it just looks like a post on a blog giving an opinion about the conference proceedings to me. Thought Shawn was a she, I believe, a writer in DC who worked as a marketing specialist and publications editor at Gallaudet. I don't think she is a researcher in the field.
 
Well, if you looked at the beginning of the post - you would see that it says "The following was contributed by Shawn Mahshie at 5 Dec 1995, and posted to DEAF-L by earbear. Shawn is the author of "Educating Deaf Children Bilingually."

She's a researcher and an author.

But I digress.
 
Geez Kokonut, i think i found an avatar that would REALLY SUIT YOU!
here goes;
avatar15169_4.gif
 
kokonut said:
How so? A pretty strange conclusion if you ask me. People have all kinds of opinions about me, good and bad. :dunno:

I don't know what your beef is.
Click to expand...

If you still don't know after several posts I've made to you directly and frankly about your attitude and how you speak to others then that's pitiful. It really is.
 
Ack! Make that gif stop. It's freaking me out! :laugh2:
 
hey GrendelQ - I was reading and re-reading from page 52 to page 60. All it states that the younger the kid is implanted, the more able they are at spoken language development which does not necessarily mean an increase in spoken dialogue - socially that is. Key word here is SPOKEN. There's nothing stating that kids who are NOT implanted are behind in linguistic developments. I am trying hard to find what other linguistic advantages CI kids have over HA kids, especially in relation to the age of their implantation. I'm not seeing it in the paper you linked to. If you can point them out to me I would appreciate it. However, it did state that the younger the child is implanted, the less likely parents will use sign. All in all, it's generally agreed with deaf kids, whether CI or HA, function far better in a bilingual teaching environment and function better with parents who use both speech and sign at home.
 
DeafCaroline said:
If you still don't know after several posts I've made to you directly and frankly about your attitude and how you speak to others then that's pitiful. It really is.
Click to expand...

I think you have a deeper underlying issue. First you bragged about how you had me on ignore. Then suddenly you've been responding to my comments. Then recently you commented out loud hoping that I put you on ignore. You keep re-directing your comments toward me rather than providing an argument to counter mine. I have no beef towards you. You make it personal. :dunno:
 
Grummer said:
Geez Kokonut, i think i found an avatar that would REALLY SUIT YOU!
here goes;
avatar15169_4.gif
Click to expand...

I guess you've been looking in your own mirror? No substantive arguments but lots sniveling instead? Feeling a little insecure or what?
 
inmate23 said:
You sound like an afterschooler?

It a great system for parents who need a break

At the moment Im living at home(19 been moved out for 3 years) and we still use our afterschooler program
Click to expand...

If you are saying my mother was about 40 or 50 years ahead of her time I am not surprised.

I like the site you included. I will show it to those parents I know who care.
 
*wish i can ban KN from this thread* Alex should be thinking about ways of adding a OP's prestiage to block out an undesired poster...but then again i think if it is possible it should 'be granted on reasonable grounds' in this case -WE ALL know he's just a ranting raver nothing more nothing less.
 
kokonut said:
I think you have a deeper underlying issue. First you bragged about how you had me on ignore. Then suddenly you've been responding to my comments. Then recently you commented out loud hoping that I put you on ignore. You keep re-directing your comments toward me rather than providing an argument to counter mine. I have no beef towards you. You make it personal. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I didn't "brag" about putting you on ignore. You need to study the dictionary. I stated it.

I responded because even though I put you on ignore, I still kept seeing what you wrote when others quoted you and then of course, I am wondering if I should see the entirety of what you wrote so I won't jump to conclusions because it's very easy to take things out of context when you take out one sentence from 2 or 3 paragraphs and quote that. It became easier to not ignore you so I can be sure I understood what was said instead of only part of what was said.

I have provided counter-arguments to you before but when I realized that you don't take any stances nor do you answer any questions that requires you to say more than yes or no, that you get very evasive and totally avoid addressing the argument head on. you're unbelievably skilled at that but guess what, we're noticing your M.O.

But you know, I could talk until i'm blue in the face and you still are going to think you're right and everybody is wrong because you want to be always right. I have never, not one single time seen you write: "you're right, I stand corrected on this fact or that." Not one single time.

AGAIN - I dont have a problem with your POVs, it's your attitude. How many times do I have to say this before you UNDERSTAND? Do I need to write in big big letters? Get a megaphone? do sky-writing? I mean???

That's your problem - you don't listen to what others say then you respond with a tone dripping with condescension just for the sake of being an ass.

You reap what you sow.
 
Back
Top