Research Study

Banjo said:
What about the children who are falling behind? Oh wait, you can't find them in the statistics. Why is that? That's because the students were probably transferred so they are no longer included in the statistics.

I wouldn't be surprised if the students were transferred to the schools for the deaf. I used to attend a school for the deaf. There were some students with cochlear implants who were transferred to the school because they were falling behind at their old schools. There were also students who were in the oral program and they had to transfer because they couldn't keep up with their peers.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Likewise, they did not have a control group of children using a bilingual approach, so the study is useless in attempting a comparison.
 
faire_jour said:
I don't know what it sounds like to be a child with a cochlear implant. I have no idea, neither do you. But there are people who were implanted as children, who are now adults (not a lot, but it is increasing every year) and we can ask them.
Click to expand...

You are completely focused on spoken language production. The rest of us are concerned about language and the implications of being placed in a restrictive environment on cognitive, emotional, and social levels. And the study you are using is biased, and in no way addresses the things you are interpreting it to address. I'd suggest a good course in statistics and research methodology.
 
faire_jour said:
I don't know what it sounds like to be a child with a cochlear implant. I have no idea, neither do you. But there are people who were implanted as children, who are now adults (not a lot, but it is increasing every year) and we can ask them.
Click to expand...

Would you listen to them any better than you listen to people who have been deaf all of their lives when they attempt to provide you with recountings of their experiences? Or would you only listen to that which coincides with your limited perspective?
 
faire_jour said:
It picked a random group of kids with CI's and paired them against a group of heearing kids and followed then for 50 months. It tested both groups in language, speech, math, reading and self esteem. At the end of the study there was no difference in any of those areas between the hearing kids and the CI kids.
Click to expand...

This study was not done based on random selection.
 
faire_jour said:
That's like dismissing Harlan Lane's research. Yeah, he is mighty biased too, does that mean that I shouldn't believe the research he does?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all like it. Lane's research can hold up under scrutiny, and he has no bias that could be related to secondary gain.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
faire_jour said:
That's like dismissing Harlan Lane's research. Yeah, he is mighty biased too, does that mean that I shouldn't believe the research he does?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all like it. Lane's research can hold up under scrutiny, and he has no bias that could be related to secondary gain.
Click to expand...

He has claimed that no child has every learned spoken language through a ci (that statement is in mask of benevolence in the chapter about ci's) clearly that doesn't reflect today's research. i know that there are parent's of implated children who have asked him to meet their children and he has flatly refused. apparently he also selects who he wants to include and who he chooses to exclude.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



He has claimed that no child has every learned spoken language through a ci (that statement is in mask of benevolence in the chapter about ci's) clearly that doesn't reflect today's research. i know that there are parent's of implated children who have asked him to meet their children and he has flatly refused. apparently he also selects who he wants to include and who he chooses to exclude.
Click to expand...

In context, FJ, in context. No child has ever learned spoken language through a CI alone. It has to be taught. That interferes with the acquisition process. The fact that language is a taught and directed activity translates to a myriad of differences in perception and ability to use language in a native way.
 
Wirelessly posted

That's not true either. there are kids with ci's that have naturally acquired language through listening through their ci.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

That's not true either. there are kids with ci's that have naturally acquired language through listening through their ci.
Click to expand...

What happen to them if they didn't have listening therapy? or no therapy at all.. they just go in for mapping and that's it.
 
faire_jour said:
Yeah, because hearing children never cry at preschool :roll:
Click to expand...

I have been through quite a few preschools where there were no tears during the better part of the day. Mostly at the beginning. Get with it. these kids were traumatized by there treatment in class by the teachers.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted

That's not true either. there are kids with ci's that have naturally acquired language through listening through their ci.
Click to expand...

Support that with something please. Something other than "I've seen it."
 
KristinaB said:
I have been through quite a few preschools where there were no tears during the better part of the day. Mostly at the beginning. Get with it. these kids were traumatized by there treatment in class by the teachers.
Click to expand...

Just a case of ostrich syndrome you are dealing with, KristinaB.
 
A said:
What happen to them if they didn't have listening therapy? or no therapy at all.. they just go in for mapping and that's it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Unless they received no therapy at all, they did not acquire language naturally through the CI alone.
 
As a recent implantee, I find it hard to believe that children can acquire natural language with the CI alone, simply because mapping itself DEPENDS on the results of hearing therapy or at least hearing testing. You go through the Ling sounds and ask the implantee if they sound the same or different (or repeat back, etc). So even if there is no therapy, you still need to test the child's hearing through various sounds and feedback from the child.

However, I wanted to say I don't even understand why people are arguing about spoken language is generally done better by oral kids. It's OBVIOUS why (practice!). Same reason why ASL is done better by ASL kids!!! This whole thing about requesting "proof" is absurd. "SHOW ME WHY PEOPLE FROM MEXICO SPEAK SPANISH BETTER THAN PEOPLE FROM GERMANY! I NEED STUDIES FOR THIS!"

The question isn't if they can do it better, but rather is it WORTH the effort. And this is where the fundamental difference lies.
 
Daredevel7 said:
As a recent implantee, I find it hard to believe that children can acquire natural language with the CI alone, simply because mapping itself DEPENDS on the results of hearing therapy or at least hearing testing. You go through the Ling sounds and ask the implantee if they sound the same or different (or repeat back, etc). So even if there is no therapy, you still need to test the child's hearing through various sounds and feedback from the child.

However, I wanted to say I don't even understand why people are arguing about spoken language is generally done better by oral kids. It's OBVIOUS why (practice!). Same reason why ASL is done better by ASL kids!!! This whole thing about requesting "proof" is absurd. "SHOW ME WHY PEOPLE FROM MEXICO SPEAK SPANISH BETTER THAN PEOPLE FROM GERMANY! I NEED STUDIES FOR THIS!"

The question isn't if they can do it better, but rather is it WORTH the effort. And this is where the fundamental difference lies.
Click to expand...

The only thing I asked for support of is that there are children who have naturally acquired spoken language with a CI alone. That claim was made, and I do not believe that it can be supported in any way, shape, or form.
 
jillio said:
The only thing I asked for support of is that there are children who have naturally acquired spoken language with a CI alone. That claim was made, and I do not believe that it can be supported in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

So any child who receives early intervention speech services does not acquire language, but is taught it?
 
Somehow all of this turned into a debate on intervention approaches. I can tell, however, that this is a big interest area.

Does anyone have any other areas that they'd like to see more research? (hearing, Deaf culture, deafness, etc.)
 
Back
Top