What is a negative aspect of Cued Speech ???

[rockdrummer]

That's the negative aspect of it..if it is used as the primary and only tool.

Would it's mis-use be a negative aspect of CS or more a negative aspect of how some choose to use (or mis-use) it. Assuming its used for what it is intended for, what would the negatives be in your view?

 

[shel90]

Would it's mis-use be a negative aspect of CS or more a negative aspect of how some choose to use (or mis-use) it. Assuming its used for what it is intended for, what would the negatives be in your view?

Yea, u can say that..a misuse of it. I am just concerned that since it is not a language and to use it for language development instead of ASL or spoken English makes me nervous. It was intended to be used as a teaching tool to develop literacy skills.

 

[rockdrummer]

Yea, u can say that..a misuse of it. I am just concerned that since it is not a language and to use it for language development instead of ASL or spoken English makes me nervous. It was intended to be used as a teaching tool to develop literacy skills.

Thanks and I cant speak for Cloggy but I believe the intent of the question is regarding negative aspects if used properly. I would defer to Cloggy to verify that.

 

[shel90]

Thanks and I cant speak for Cloggy but I believe the intent of the question is regarding negative aspects if used properly. I would defer to Cloggy to verify that.

U are welcome. It could be what Cloggy was referring to.If so then my answer would be that I dont see anything negative about it as a teaching tool.

 

[jillio]

Cloggy, you pose a great question that needed to be asked.

I learned how to cue (though it's been such a long time since I've used it - I've forgotten most of it by now). The negative aspects in my experience is that there are not really that many instructors who know how to use cueing. In the state of Arkansas (where I'm orginally from) there was only ONE teacher in the entire state who knew how to cue. There was not one single person that we could find who could teach the cueing process. Believe me, I turned over every stone there was. So basically - no support system. I learned how to cue by going to another state.

*Another negative aspect is that there isn't really that much research on its effectiveness for learning language - which is a shame because I have this hutch in my gut...that cueing just might be the key to closing the gaps of learning the English language (as much as I hate to admit it)

*Cueing is meant for literacy - not for communication - yet a lot of people get this mixed up.

Cloggy - have you ever heard of Visual Phonics, by the way? It is not the same thing as CS, but it is similar...

From the research I have seen to date, Visual Phonics has some very promising results. Of course, there is no longitudinal data due to the newness of the system, but it actually is a more "user friendly" system in terms of literacy.

 

[jillio]

Traditionally perhaps. Nowadays the combination of CI and CS is showing tremendous potential.

Could you refer me to some empirical studies that support that claim? To date, all I have seen is limited and questionable anecdote.

CS never claimed it stood by itself.

Claims have been made on this board that it stands alone for the purpose of language acquisition.

Intention is not being better lipreaders. Lipreading is part of the CS "system".

You might want to check with the Cornett foundation on that one. Lipreading is not a part of the CS system. CS was intended to remove the ambiguity from lipreading. Lipreading is a part of the oral system.
That's not the fault of CS. Few people here are using Sign. That's not a fault of signlanguage.

If it is not being used because it is ineffective, then it is the fault of CS. And virtually no one is Norway is using CS, as it has not been adapted to the Norwegian language.

Its negative if you are attemtping to integrate into a group of English speaking people who don't speak any Dutch. Likewise with a cuer.

Again... that's not a negative. Sign has the same problem

No, sign does not have the same problem. In the U.S., sign is the 3rd most taught foreign language at the collegiate level. There are many, many more signers in the U.S. than there are cuers.

 

[jillio]

Would it's mis-use be a negative aspect of CS or more a negative aspect of how some choose to use (or mis-use) it. Assuming its used for what it is intended for, what would the negatives be in your view?

Agreed. Promotion of CS as a method of communication allowing for natural language acquisition is definately a misuse, and one for which the system was never designed. We must also keep mind, when Dr. Cornett devised this system, it was based on his experience in teaching college students, and not experience or expertise in the language acquisition of young children.

Used as it was intended, the downside from my perspective would be that not all students are phonetic learners, and this holds true for the hearing population as well as the deaf population. A second downside would be the relatively few fluent cuers available. A third downside is that it does not use a whole language approach, and therefore is not effective in providing contextual information, and contextual information is critical to reading comprehension.

 

[Cloggy]

Thanks and I cant speak for Cloggy but I believe the intent of the question is regarding negative aspects if used properly. I would defer to Cloggy to verify that.

You're right..

 

[Cloggy]

Traditionally perhaps. Nowadays the combination of CI and CS is showing tremendous potential.

Could you refer me to some empirical studies that support that claim? To date, all I have seen is limited and questionable anecdote.
..................

Looking at the availability you have regarding research papers, it is obvious you have not even put an a combination of "CS, Cued Speech, CI Cochlear Implant" in a University Database.....

Guess you want to stick to listning to "anecdote".

For people interested in learning the benefits of Cued Speech in combination with Cochlear Implants...

Torres, S., Moreno-Torres, I., & Santana, R. (2006). Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child With Cued Speech: A Case Study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(4), 438-448.

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., m.fl. (1998). Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic struc-ture of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal Of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44(1), 15-22.
Descourtieux, C. (2003). Seize ans d'expérience pratique à CODALI: Evaluation-evolutions. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 65-77.

LeNormand, M.-T. (2003). Aquisition du lexique chez l'enfant implantée. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 97-108.

Cochard, N. (2003). Impact du LPC sur l'évolution des enfants implantés. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 65-77.

 

[Cheri]

The only negative aspect I had was when hands were placed near the mouth while speech reading from my experience in cued speech. Every particular methodologies has some negative aspect, Not one option can meet the needs of all deaf children and that's the truth.

 

[mom]

Whole language vs phonetics

Agreed. Promotion of CS as a method of communication allowing for natural language acquisition is definately a misuse, and one for which the system was never designed. We must also keep mind, when Dr. Cornett devised this system, it was based on his experience in teaching college students, and not experience or expertise in the language acquisition of young children.

Used as it was intended, the downside from my perspective would be that not all students are phonetic learners, and this holds true for the hearing population as well as the deaf population. A second downside would be the relatively few fluent cuers available. A third downside is that it does not use a whole language approach, and therefore is not effective in providing contextual information, and contextual information is critical to reading comprehension.

How many of you know or have studied the controversy over teaching via the whole language approach vs. the phonetic approach for all children, not just those in the Deaf/HOH group?

Read Wikipedia for a bit of a history lesson: Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillio]

How many of you know or have studied the controversy over teaching via the whole language approach vs. the phonetic approach for all children, not just those in the Deaf/HOH group?

Read Wikipedia for a bit of a history lesson: Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't speak for others, but I certainly have. And we apply it to deaf/hoh children here because this is a deaf forum, and this thread is in regard to deaf children and their education.

 

[rockdrummer]

Used as it was intended, the downside from my perspective would be that not all students are phonetic learners, and this holds true for the hearing population as well as the deaf population.

What about it's benifit for those that are phonetic learners? I see it as a tool that can be accessed when needed for it's purpose. Yes it would be subjective but could benefit nevertheless.

A second downside would be the relatively few fluent cuers available.

I don't agree that is a downside of CS itself.

A third downside is that it does not use a whole language approach, and therefore is not effective in providing contextual information, and contextual information is critical to reading comprehension.

I don't believe CS is intended to be used as a whole language approach therefore would it be fair to consider this a downside?
Personally I think CS is another tool that can be used in cases where other things fail. It's certianly not a catch all but I do believe it has its place when properly used for what it's intended. There is no denying that many folks have benefited from CS. There is also no denying that some will not benefit from it.

 

[jillio]

What about it's benifit for those that are phonetic learners? I see it as a tool that can be accessed when needed for it's purpose. Yes it would be subjective but could benefit nevertheless.
When used as a tool that is accessed as needed, then you are correct. Unfortunately, the move is not to have it used as a teaching tool, but as a complete communciation system.

I don't agree that is a downside of CS itself.
Your perogative. However, if one is fluent in CS, and has no one to communicate with, where would the downside apply?



I don't believe CS is intended to be used as a whole language approach therefore would it be fair to consider this a downside?
No, it was never intended as a whole language approach, or even as a communication system. However, it is being distorted currently and promoted for uses never intended. So, those who have distorted its use are guilty of placing it in a position of creating additional downsides. Quite the opposite of what they intend, I'm sure, but created all the same.
Personally I think CS is another tool that can be used in cases where other things fail. It's certianly not a catch all but I do believe it has its place when properly used for what it's intended. There is no denying that many folks have benefited from CS. There is also no denying that some will not benefit from it.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have no problem with CS being used as a teaching tool when and where it has shown to be effective. Of course, we have no empirical results indicating that effectiveness. My objection is to the promotion of CS as a method of language acquisition for the deaf child, and its use as a communication system.

 

[Cloggy]

jillio: A second downside would be the relatively few fluent cuers available.
RockDrummer: I don't agree that is a downside of CS itself.

Your perogative. However, if one is fluent in CS, and has no one to communicate with, where would the downside apply?

You mean.... like Sign-language

.......... I have no problem with CS being used as a teaching tool when and where it has shown to be effective. Of course, we have no empirical results indicating that effectiveness. My objection is to the promotion of CS as a method of language acquisition for the deaf child, and its use as a communication system.

However.... Cued Speech IS a communication system and effective as well.... many will testify to that.... oh, that's right... That doesn't count in your world....
However, it's perfectly natural to promote it as such.... since it is..!!

And no "emperical studies"........ are you sure..... or you never checked.... Ah.. OK... got it....
you obviously missed that post:
Well, no need to go back....

Torres, S., Moreno-Torres, I., & Santana, R. (2006). Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Linguistic Input Support to a Prelingually Deaf Child With Cued Speech: A Case Study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11(4), 438-448.

Vieu, A., Mondain, M., Blanchard, K., Sillon, M., Reuillard-Artieres, F., Tobey, E., m.fl. (1998). Influence of communication mode on speech intelligibility and syntactic struc-ture of sentences in profoundly hearing impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. International Journal Of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 44(1), 15-22.

Descourtieux, C. (2003). Seize ans d'expérience pratique à CODALI: Evaluation-evolutions. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 65-77.

LeNormand, M.-T. (2003). Aquisition du lexique chez l'enfant implantée. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 97-108.

Cochard, N. (2003). Impact du LPC sur l'évolution des enfants implantés. Actes des Journées d'études Nantes, 40, 65-77.

OK... perhaps not Vieu et.al.

You haven't been able to find relevant studies yourself... interesting...

 

[jillio]

jillio: A second downside would be the relatively few fluent cuers available.
RockDrummer: I don't agree that is a downside of CS itself.

You mean.... like Sign-language



However.... Cued Speech IS a communication system and effective as well.... many will testify to that.... oh, that's right... That doesn't count in your world....
However, it's perfectly natural to promote it as such.... since it is..!!

And no "emperical studies"........ are you sure..... or you never checked.... Ah.. OK... got it....
you obviously missed that post:
Well, no need to go back....


OK... perhaps not Vieu et.al.

You haven't been able to find relevant studies yourself... interesting...

And that is exactly where you are mistaken, and sadly mistaken at that.

Likewise, I suggest you check both the spelling and the nature of empirical. What you have provided is a case study. It is an example of one child: hardly empirical evidence. More anecdotal in nature.

 

[deafdyke]

You mean.... like Sign-language

Cloggy, the diffy is that there's a significent minority that uses ASL/sign. Whereas there's a SMALL minority that uses Cued Speech. You understand now?
It's exactly like the way in this country, Spanish is a significent minority, but you won't find too many Catalan speakers or speakers of Basque here in the US.

 

[deafskeptic]

How many of you know or have studied the controversy over teaching via the whole language approach vs. the phonetic approach for all children, not just those in the Deaf/HOH group?

Read Wikipedia for a bit of a history lesson: Whole language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm well aware of it and when people find out that I'm deaf and that I've decent reading and writing skills, those who think phonics is the only way to read and write tend to get confounded by me when they find out that I have trouble with phonics.

 

[RedFox]

I'm well aware of it and when people find out that I'm deaf and that I've decent reading and writing skills, those who think phonics is the only way to read and write tend to get confounded by me when they find out that I have trouble with phonics.

Would they be confounded by me reading and writing well even if I rarely can lipread and had never spoke a complete sentence in my entire life?

 

[shel90]

Would they be confounded by me reading and writing well even if I rarely can lipread and had never spoke a complete sentence in my entire life?

Oh I AM postive..I am so tired of the oralists saying that deaf people who grew up using ASL have poor literacy skills when it is a complete fabrication. I think they say that to justify the reasons for their beliefs that deaf children need to be oral only. :roll: