Pros and cons of Oralism??

deafdyke said:
Passcifist, I hardly think that people here are biased. MANY people here think that the role of a parent should be to give the kid ALL the tools possible.
ALL the tools. Speech, literacy, Sign etc. No kid should ever ever have to turn to their parent to ask why they never learned Sign!
Why is that so controversial? Speech is a great tool, but it's never ever going to be adquate 100% of the time. My piece that's (hopefully) being published this month goes into this issue more.....and who knows? Maybe my piece will wake up a lot of those "Oh my child doesn't need Sign" folks, and win them over to the full toolbox approach!
If a kid is introduced to the full toolbox, and chooses NOT to sign, then that's GREAT! But it should be THEIR decision. I see too many parents going "Oh my kid doesn't choose to sign" when they have the "Oh sign is not healthy or normal" mentality. I have however, heard of kids who for EI, get Sign, speech etc, and make the decision on their OWN to stop signing!
Click to expand...

I rest my case.....
 
ThreeLittleBear said:
A few times I ran into groups or people that were for oral only.
Can anyone tell me some of the pros and cons of it?
Click to expand...

One really has to look at method and see if it's right. A method that gives no way to communicate while learning is not going to help much when the child begins acting out. As a hoh person who for years depended on reading lips I would say that unless the child learning to speak gets darn good reception through the HA's a method that coveres the mouth to 'teach' them to listen is bad.

I woudn't chose an oral only program for a serverely/profoundly deaf child, I would of course give the child every oppertunity to hear and speak from an early age. (probably implant if qualified and necessary therapies)

Maybe if those who push a method that doesn't use an alternative way to communciate while learning it had to have thier ears plugged to take their hearing down to the level of a profoundly deaf persons they'd finally get the idea that forcing a deaf person to 'listen' doesn't work?
 
SJCSue said:
I agree! Oral skills are a good set of tools to have but I do not think an oral-only education is the best idea for deaf and hard of hearing children. It takes time to develop speech.

Remember Shelby from Sound and Fury: she was the girl with the CI in the hearing familly. Her parents did not expose her to signing because the "professionals" told them so. :tears: :( I felt so bad for her because her parents did not take the time to research information about the Deaf community. They only considered what the professionals were telling them. Her speech was very clear and very understandable but how about her language skills. :dunno:
Click to expand...
:gpost: Oh, people have called me a liar and said no parents would ever do that to their kids. I agree with you 100% here! Thanks for pointing this out--I see this a lot in hearing parents of deaf children.
 
Pacificst, what the heck is that supposed to mean? I am pro-full communication toolbox......that means I am not biased towards methodolgy, whether it be, Sign, speech, Cued or what have you. It should be the child's choice. Yeah, I bash oral-only but that's b/c of the "healthy normal" not speshal needs mentality, that accompies it. If more oralists pushed it more as a thing that could give dhh kids an additional skill, I wouldn't even say anything against oralism.
 
I am hoh and was taught oral methods (I think cuz Im not that familiar with all the teaching methods of oralism). I did well for severely deaf person with good speech skills and language skills--which I picked it up mostly by reading tons of books in childhood. I was a bookworm in those days becuz I felt isolated from the hearing world which is one of the negatives about oralism. I did fine lipreading one on one most of time but cant catch up with conversation in a group.

Learning how to speak takes hours of practice and alot of it depends on how good the speech teacher is. My mom was very picky about the quality of speech teachers and she took the time to practice speech stuff with me. I did this all the way from elementary to high school. Oralism served me well in the working world--made it easier for me to get jobs. But I was isolated in the hearing world. Just another perspective on this subject.
 
Well for Cued Speech is use to help develop a child’s language but it's not intended to help a child’s speech and not ALL deaf children will be able to speak clearly..There are many myths about how to communicate with deaf children and learning oral only will not help a deaf child be able to communicate along with other deaf children, some deaf children are good at lipreading and some aren't, Some deaf children enjoy being in total communication, in which both sign and speech are used and when hearing parents are seeking help on which language methods they should teach their deaf child, usually doctors provide them the oral methods cause it will help a deaf child speak and improve their language skills but doctors generally have no knowledge of deafness or what a deaf child need to know etc...

I rather my deaf child to learn both oral and ASL! :)
 
Right on! Oral skills allow for SOME access to the hearing world, but most dhh kids feel really isolated in the hearing world. Oral skills generally don't allow for a ton of access to the hearing world. Social skills are ALSO very important in day to day life.
I also don't believe that we should have to spend our whole lives going "boo-be-bah"......WHY is it, that experts think that we need to spend our entire lives in a speech therapy session? Why is it that experts think that the best functioning is that of nondisabled folks? Why is it SO goddamn important for us to function like pseduo nondisabled folks? I don't get it....I really don't get it.....why is not using a wheelchair, not using Sign or other "speshal" methods so important?
 
deafdyke said:
Pacificst, what the heck is that supposed to mean? I am pro-full communication toolbox......that means I am not biased towards methodolgy, whether it be, Sign, speech, Cued or what have you. It should be the child's choice. Yeah, I bash oral-only but that's b/c of the "healthy normal" not speshal needs mentality, that accompies it. If more oralists pushed it more as a thing that could give dhh kids an additional skill, I wouldn't even say anything against oralism.
Click to expand...


I meant it was very obvious NO-ONE here is unbiased. The lady was asking for advice or suggestion, I think we are far too biased to offer balance, so I didn't offer any suggestion, each must find their own way, a child is different from an adult, I wouldn't presume to tell a parent how to proceed with bringing up their child, no more than I would approach anyone here to bring up mine. What works for us may well not work for them. If anything the best way forward would be to ignore people here, start fresh, and with an open attitude. The oral/cultural thing has destroyed deaf unity, the child is best out of it, that at day one the various factions want to set the tone/lifestyle is horrfiic and gross interference.
 
Threebears -

I wouldnt say that oralism is the key. It is just a TOOL.

Sign language
Oralism
CI

are all tools - there is nothing wrong with having all of tools available to surivive in this ever-increasingly competitive and streamlined society. Why limit to only oralism or ASL or whatnot when you can have it all and communicate with person with any tool? lIt doesnt have to be in black and white.

I embrace total communication - it provides the best of all worlds in one.
 
Gemtun said:
Threebears -

I wouldnt say that oralism is the key. It is just a TOOL.

Sign language
Oralism
CI

are all tools - there is nothing wrong with having all of tools available to surivive in this ever-increasingly competitive and streamlined society. Why limit to only oralism or ASL or whatnot when you can have it all and communicate with person with any tool? lIt doesnt have to be in black and white.

I embrace total communication - it provides the best of all worlds in one.
Click to expand...


ALL modes we use are tools for communication, not one of them is the complete answer in itself. Where some went wrong, was settling for one, rejecting viable others, and then basing their life around it, thus cutting off many other options they might otherwise have had, then, making a virtue of the isolation that resulted.
 
Passivist said:
ALL modes we use are tools for communication, not one of them is the complete answer in itself. Where some went wrong, was settling for one, rejecting viable others, and then basing their life around it, thus cutting off many other options they might otherwise have had, then, making a virtue of the isolation that resulted.
Click to expand...

AMEN
 
Passifist, on the other hand, at least we don't have people running around screaming that speech is the answer or that Sign is the answer. I still don't get your point. People here want to help dhh kids avoid the problems they went through as dhh kids themselves. That's the way I look at it. That is why we need to be nonbiased about methodology, but rather concentrate on making sure the dhh kid has all the tools possible. I wouldn't tell a parent how to raise a kid, but isn't having a full toolbox, better then having a toolbox that only has one or two tools in it?
 
Well for Cued Speech is use to help develop a child’s language but it's not intended to help a child’s speech and not ALL deaf children will be able to speak clearly... I rather my deaf child to learn both oral and ASL!
Click to expand...

Cued Speech is intended to help deaf kids acquire spoken languages visually. Cued Speech has been used as a tool to help kids with pronounciation, not speech itself. Deaf cuers still have to have speech therapy and learn how to produce speech sounds.

If English literacy is important, then consistent use of Cued Speech is highly effective.
 
Has Cuem been used to teach Chinese? B/c the thing is, that Cuem is essentially a manual version of those dictionary pronouncation thingys, right? How could Cuem be used to teach a tonal language?
 
Has Cuem been used to teach Chinese? B/c the thing is, that Cuem is essentially a manual version of those dictionary pronouncation thingys, right? How could Cuem be used to teach a tonal language?
Click to expand...

I don't know about cuem and tonal languages since I don't know that area but I don't see why it can't be used. My guess would be that they would use different placements for different tones even if vowels are the same.
 
PRO: You learn to talk better. (Not as well as a hearing person, depending on your hearing.)

CON: It doesn't help you understand others, just yourself.
 
netrox said:
I don't know about cuem and tonal languages since I don't know that area but I don't see why it can't be used. My guess would be that they would use different placements for different tones even if vowels are the same.
Click to expand...

I read a paper on this a while back. I think they add a third element (i.e., shape codes for consonants, position for vowels, and movement for tones). Might be wrong on that, though.
 
deafdyke said:
Passifist, on the other hand, at least we don't have people running around screaming that speech is the answer or that Sign is the answer. I still don't get your point. People here want to help dhh kids avoid the problems they went through as dhh kids themselves. That's the way I look at it. That is why we need to be nonbiased about methodology, but rather concentrate on making sure the dhh kid has all the tools possible. I wouldn't tell a parent how to raise a kid, but isn't having a full toolbox, better then having a toolbox that only has one or two tools in it?
Click to expand...

Depends on the tools, their suitability, and the ability, of the person to use them. I don't personally think choice/preference is viable, it's a false argument, whether it is speech or sign-language in a child's case.
 
ThreeLittleBear said:
Ummm... maybe I should clarify my interest in this subject.

My daughter knows sign, and will learn more. But she received her CI in May of this year, so she's learning speech too, even before that though she had picked up on lipreading because I'm in the habit of signing and speaking/mouthing already. (she can lipread no, wait, stop, and Alaurial :) ) She will continue to learn both signing and to speak. My question was plain curiosity that I was thinking of turning into a paper or speech for my schoolwork.

And to answer someone's question - yes the people and groups I ran into were completely against signing. I had one woman tell me over the phone that signing would impair her communication skills and leave her frustated. Long story for another post though!!
Click to expand...

What you are exposing your daughter to is more total communication. Sign, speech, speech reading, and assistive device.
 
deafdyke said:
Pacificst, what the heck is that supposed to mean? I am pro-full communication toolbox......that means I am not biased towards methodolgy, whether it be, Sign, speech, Cued or what have you. It should be the child's choice. Yeah, I bash oral-only but that's b/c of the "healthy normal" not speshal needs mentality, that accompies it. If more oralists pushed it more as a thing that could give dhh kids an additional skill, I wouldn't even say anything against oralism.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, deafdyke. The oralists I encountered didn't present it as an additional skill--they presented it as the only skill. Only if the kid was 12 years old and an oral "failure" would they ever even think about sign. It downright abusive!!
 
Back
Top