What is a negative aspect of Cued Speech ???

loml said:
deafdyke - Reading, writting and speaking English is




I have not met a deaf/Deaf Cuer with poor/unintelligible speech skills. However, if this were the case the option of pen and paper in written English is available to them.:)
Click to expand...


I have...my coworker who grew up with CS has poor speech skills.
 
I don't see how Cued Speech can hurt any deaf children's learning needs along with any other language they want to learn.

I bet it's viewed as negative because I believe its original intention was to help a deaf child speak. I saw a story of the first deaf child to sucessfully use this method. It works if both parents and teachers learn it.

Cued Speech is learned in about a week, which is what I learned from a few Cuers that still cue to this day. I think they love it so much that they still use it to this day.

This is to help you see speech sounds visually. I see it as a way to help deaf children be less frustrated when learning speech.
 
ClearSky said:
I don't see how Cued Speech can hurt any deaf children's learning needs along with any other language they want to learn.

I bet it's viewed as negative because I believe its original intention was to help a deaf child speak. I saw a story of the first deaf child to sucessfully use this method. It works if both parents and teachers learn it.

Cued Speech is learned in about a week, which is what I learned from a few Cuers that still cue to this day. I think they love it so much that they still use it to this day.

This is to help you see speech sounds visually. I see it as a way to help deaf children be less frustrated when learning speech.
Click to expand...


Cued Speech is not a language...it is a system.
 
Cued Speech is not a language...it is a system.
Click to expand...

I KNOW. I said that if they want to learn sign language or other language, they can use Cued Speech along with them to learn the speech sounds behind it. I see it as a simple method to learn that it could be used with whatever approach you bring up your child with.
 
ClearSky said:
I KNOW. I said that if they want to learn sign language or other language, they can use Cued Speech along with them to learn the speech sounds behind it. I see it as a simple method to learn that it could be used with whatever approach you bring up your child with.
Click to expand...

U mean as a teaching tool?
 
Yes, it's a simple teaching tool that I just don't see why not learn it from the beginning and give it a real try to give the child a visual way to see speech sounds. If it doesn't take long to learn, why not learn the tool? I think it'd be more successful if both parents and teachers learned it including the speech language pathologist.

It's strange that it's not widely a widely used method because if they want us to learn speech better, then why don't they know the method?
 
ClearSky said:
Yes, it's a simple teaching tool that I just don't see why not learn it from the beginning and give it a real try to give the child a visual way to see speech sounds. If it doesn't take long to learn, why not learn the tool? I think it'd be more successful if both parents and teachers learned it including the speech language pathologist.

It's strange that it's not widely a widely used method because if they want us to learn speech better, then why don't they know the method?
Click to expand...

After 40 years in use, there has been no significant improvement in deaf children's literacy skills. Just like oral deaf ed, it works for some but not for the majority. There was a cued speech thread made a few years ago asking people who have experienced it and how it worked for them. Some said it was too confusing for them and others said it worked for them.
 
There's one other reason why you won't see much of disadvantage strategy of Cued Speech, because it's not majority used by the deaf. Oral and Total Communication were majority used by the deaf for many years. As with every approach to educating children who are deaf, not all children will be successful. :)
 
shel90 said:
After 40 years in use, there has been no significant improvement in deaf children's literacy skills. ........
Click to expand...
.... because most deaf children don't use it...
You forgot that part of the equation.....

However.... for the deaf children that have used it.....

But.... even though the discussion regarding CS for deaf children, there's a new discussion and research for deaf children with CI... hence some of the articles I quoted...
 
Cloggy said:
.... because most deaf children don't use it...
You forgot that part of the equation.....

However.... for the deaf children that have used it.....

But.... even though the discussion regarding CS for deaf children, there's a new discussion and research for deaf children with CI... hence some of the articles I quoted...
Click to expand...

There's a reason why most don't use cued speech; cued speech doesn't really address a deaf person's need to communicate with others.

While I think it has it uses, I do not think that it's the answer to the deaf's literacy skills or speech skills. I remember that two of my classmates never gained any speech skills via cued speech and several of them really struggled with English and literacy skills. After years in a deaf school that allowed sign, one of my classmates from the oral program gained literacy skills slowly but surely. I've used it and though I think it helped me some, I also recall it wasn't helpful to my classmates.
 
Cheri said:
There's one other reason why you won't see much of disadvantage strategy of Cued Speech, because it's not majority used by the deaf. Oral and Total Communication were majority used by the deaf for many years. As with every approach to educating children who are deaf, not all children will be successful. :)
Click to expand...

See, as a teacher, I cant adopt that way of thinking. I was taught to believe that all children can be successful with whatever approach I use and in my experience, I have seen the most success with the BiBi approach which is why I chose to go with that approach. I cant allow myself to think that not all children will be successful cuz that would make me an irresponsible teacher. That was what we were taught in the teaching programs...cant think that some fail cuz with that mindset, some will fail so by thinking that all will be successful, we set higher expectations for the children.
 
ClearSky said:
Yes, it's a simple teaching tool that I just don't see why not learn it from the beginning and give it a real try to give the child a visual way to see speech sounds. If it doesn't take long to learn, why not learn the tool? I think it'd be more successful if both parents and teachers learned it including the speech language pathologist.

It's strange that it's not widely a widely used method because if they want us to learn speech better, then why don't they know the method?
Click to expand...

ClearSky - Cued Speech is not a speech tool. The system does not teach articulation, it can be implemeted as a support tool for a speech program.

You are correct that one of the components of CS is providing a visual representation of sound.
 
faire_jour said:
I have!!!
Click to expand...

faire_jour- That in and of itself does not mean the the system of Cued Speech is the root cause of poor speech. CS is NOT a speech tool.

I have met Deaf people with poor ASL skills, that is not a reflection on ASL.
 
loml said:
faire_jour- That in and of itself does not mean the the system of Cued Speech is the root cause of poor speech. CS is NOT a speech tool.

I have met Deaf people with poor ASL skills, that is not a reflection on ASL.
Click to expand...

I dont think faire_jour implied that..just saying that she has met deaf cuers with poor speech skills. Same here but I dont blame CS for it.
 
deafskeptic said:
There's a reason why most don't use cued speech; cued speech doesn't really address a deaf person's need to communicate with others.
Click to expand...

deafskeptic - This is simply your bias, you are not the voice for all deaf people.
 
shel90 said:
After 40 years in use, there has been no significant improvement in deaf children's literacy skills.
Click to expand...

shel90 - This is not an accurate statement. If we were to look at our combined numbers of deaf cuers, the precentage of literate deaf cueing indiviuduals would be 99%.
 
Last edited:
loml said:
If we were to look at our combined numbers of deaf cuers, the precentage of literate deaf cueing indiviuduals would be 99%.
Click to expand...

How literate? Literacy is a spectrum. Most people can read some, few people can read and comprehend 100% of the world's written material.
 
Cloggy said:
.... because most deaf children don't use it...
You forgot that part of the equation.....

However.... for the deaf children that have used it.....

But.... even though the discussion regarding CS for deaf children, there's a new discussion and research for deaf children with CI... hence some of the articles I quoted...
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the only ones reported on are the ones that are successful. That is why you find nothing more than case study or anecdotal information. In order for the study to provide accurate information, those who are not successful need to be included along with those who were successful.
 
loml said:
shel90 - This is not an accurate statement. If we were to look at our combined numbers of deaf cuers, the precentage of literate deaf cueing indiviuduals would be 99%.
Click to expand...

Provide a link for your quote. We do not know if this is an opinion paper, a case study, anecdotal evidence, or an empirical study. Therefore, it is useless.

And, Shel's statement is accurate, as there have not been significant increases shown for the population as a whole.
 
Back
Top