Teaching Deaf Children To Talk: Jean S. Moog Karen K. Stein
Teaching Deaf Children To Talk: Jean S. Moog Karen K. Stein
Teaching Deaf Children To Talk: Jean S. Moog Karen K. Stein
Jean S. Moog
Karen K. Stein
Moog Center for Deaf Education, St. Louis, MO
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
Moog Fall
Stein:
DISORDERS Volume 35 133142
2008 Teaching
NSSLHADeaf Children to Talk
1092-5171/08/3502-0133
133
CAPITALIZING ON HEARING
The improved technology of digital hearing aids and
cochlear implants has given severely and profoundly deaf
children increasingly more access to sound. When early
educational intervention capitalizes on early access to
sound, the result is faster acquisition of spoken language. It
is as simple as this: The more young children hear, the
better they talk. Both hearing aids and cochlear implants
give greater access to sound so that children with hearing
loss who are learning to talk progress faster and with less
effort. With this increase in access to sound, these children
can more easily develop complex language and intelligible
speech.
Cochlear implants are often the device of choice for
children who are severely or profoundly deaf, especially if
spoken language acquisition is a goal. The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has approved cochlear implantation for infants as young as 1 year once there has been a
period of listening training with hearing aids and it has
been determined that hearing aids are of little or no
benefit. Today, an increasing number of children are
receiving implants in both ears. The appropriate programming or mapping of the implant is a critical factor. How
well the cochlear implant is programmed has an impact on
how well the child hears, and how well the child hears has
a big impact on how well the child learns to talk. Just as
with hearing aids, the earlier the child receives a cochlear
implant, the better chance he or she has to benefit from
access to spoken language and learning to talk (Geers,
2004; Geers, Nicholas, & Moog, 2007; Nicholas & Geers,
2006). However, even with improved technology, hearing
134
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
AUDITORYORAL EDUCATION
The goal of auditoryoral education is for children to learn
to communicate using spoken language. Auditoryoral
programs are auditory in the sense that an emphasis is
placed on developing listening skills. These programs are
oral in the sense that instruction is directed toward
developing spoken language, understanding it, and producing it. Although the goal of all auditoryoral programs is
for children to learn to listen and talk, not all are organized
in the same way. For example, some have classes only for
children with hearing loss, whereas some include children
with typical hearing; some are located in special schools,
some provide one or two classes within a school for
hearing children, and some provide individual therapy for
children who are completely mainstreamed.
Auditoryoral programs may provide varying levels of
emphasis on the areas of spoken language development and
use different styles of teaching and a different organization
of the childs day. Regardless of the organization or the
specific teaching strategies of the program, all listening and
spoken language programs provide spoken language
instruction in a variety of activities throughout the day.
Characteristics of a quality auditoryoral education
program include the following (Moog, 2007):
The programs goal is for children to learn spoken
language well enough to communicate effectively by
talking and to develop age-appropriate reading skills.
Children are immersed in spoken language throughout
the day.
Listening is supported through the management of
well-fitted hearing aids and/or cochlear implants.
Acoustics of the classroom are designed to provide a
quiet listening environment.
Teachers are knowledgeable about and trained in
techniques for accelerating spoken language development in children with hearing loss.
Classes are small.
Programs are both family centered and child centered.
Parents are considered a critical support in ensuring
their childs success in developing spoken language.
Programs focus on preparing students to enter the
mainstream early and with the skills needed for
successful participation.
135
136
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
child says it, (c) the teacher provides a model that expresses the childs idea but improves the language or
speech used, (d) the child imitates the model, and (e) the
teacher uses various techniques to help the child include
the targeted improvement in his or her imitated production.
The modeling and imitation technique requires children
to talk and to imitate the model that is provided by the
teacher. The critical feature is that the teacher targets some
of the childs initial production for improvement and then
works with the child to get an improved production. A
model may be provided to complete or fill in missing
pieces; correct language, vocabulary, or articulation; or
increase the length or complexity of the original utterance.
Getting the child to imitate the improved model is an
essential step in the process as it provides practice using
the syntactic structure, vocabulary word, or speech sound
that was targeted in the model. In addition, imitation helps
the child learn to recognize and understand the new words
or sounds the next time he or she hears them, and helps
the development of auditory memory. Listening to the
childs imitation provides information to the teacher about
the level of facility the child has with the targeted structures. Consistent use of this technique in communicative
interactions has a significant impact on the development of
spoken language skills. The more the teacher uses modeling
and imitation, the more opportunity the child gets to
practice producing correct language.
We believe that deaf children learn to talk by talking.
The more children practice talking, the better they get, but
just talking is not enough. With modeling and imitation,
effort is directed toward getting children to talk better, with
a focus on improving their use of syntactic structures,
increasing their vocabulary, increasing the length and
complexity of their sentences, and improving the intelligibility of their speech.
137
138
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
Figure 1. A sample preschool schedule at the Moog Center. Individual children are represented by letters of the alphabet.
Discovery Room
Teacher 6
Time
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
8:308:40
Device Check
A,B,C,D
E,F,G,H
I,J,K,L
M,N,O,P
Q,R,S,T,U
8:409:05
Syntax/Vocabulary
C,D
E,F
I,J
M,N
R,S,T
Circle/Choice:
A,B,G,H,K,L,O,P,Q,U
9:059:30
Syntax/Vocabulary
A,B
G,H
K,L
O,P
Q,U
Circle/Choice:
C,D,E,F,I,J,M,N,R,S,T
9:309:50
Conv. Language
C,D
E,F
I,J
M,N
R,S,T
Music/Movement:
A,B,G,H,K,L,O,P,Q,U
9:5010:10
Conv. Language
A,B
G,H
K,L
O,P
Q,U
Music/Movement:
C,D,E,F,I,J,M,N,R,S,T
10:1010:30
Snack
A,B,C,D
E,F,G,H
I,J,K,L
M,N,O,P
Q,R,S,T,U
10:3011:00
Recess
Staff Time
Staff Time
Staff Time
Staff Time
Staff Time
RecessAll
11:0011:30
Speech/Aud. Tr.
C,D
E,H
J,N
M,I
S,T,U
Thematic language:
A,B,F,G,I,K,L,O,P,Q,R
11:3012:00
Speech/Aud. Tr.
A,B
F,G
K,L
O,P
Q,R,
Thematic language:
C,D,E,H,I,J,M,N,S,T,U
12:0012:30
Lunch
All
All
All
All
All
12:301:00
Recess
D,E,G,H,I,J,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U
12:301:30
Nap
A,B,C,F,K,L
1:001:30
Preacademics
D,H
M,R,U
I,J,P
G,O,P,S
Q,T
1:302:00
Experience
C,D
G,H
I,J
M,N
R,S,T
2:002:30
Experience
A,B
E,F
K,L
O,P
Q,U
2:302:50
Storytime
A,B,C,D
E,F,G,H
I,J,K,L
M,N,O,P
Q,R,S,T,U
A,B,C,D
E,F,G,H
I,J,K,L
M,N,O,P
Q,R,S,T,U
2:503:00
Get ready
to go home
Cognitive activities:
A,B,E,F,K,L,O,P,Q,U
Cognitive activities:
C,D,G,H,I,J,M,N,R,S,T
139
140
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
Recent Studies
A recent study at the Moog Center evaluated the effectiveness of our birth-to-3 parent education and toddler programs in terms of teaching deaf children to talk. Vocabulary skills of 43 children who had attended the family
school program for 1 or more years, beginning in 2000 or
later, were evaluated. Sixty-five percent of these children
had cochlear implants. All children received assessments of
receptive and expressive vocabulary shortly after leaving
the family school program and entering a preschool
classroom (mean age = 3 years, 3 months). Given that
children enter the family school program at very young
ages with little to no vocabulary, assessing the children
shortly after leaving the program at 3 years of age provides
evidence for the effectiveness of the program in terms of
vocabulary development.
We measured receptive vocabulary using the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary TestThird Edition (PPVTIII; Dunn &
Dunn, 1997) and expressive vocabulary using the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT;
Brownell, 2000). The PPVT and EOWPVT have been
standardized on large populations of hearing children. Thus,
a score of 100 represents average performance as compared
with hearing children of the same chronological age. Scores
that range from 85 to 115 (representing 1 SD of 15 below
and above the mean of 100) are considered to be within the
average range for hearing children. The mean standard
scores of the children in the family school program were
93 for receptive vocabulary and 96 for expressive vocabulary, both of which are well within the average range for
hearing age-mates. Table 1 shows that of the 43 children in
Table 1. Results from the vocabulary testing of 3-year-olds who had attended the Moog Center
family school program. Standardized scores are reported, and results are categorized based on
below average, average, and above average performance by hearing peers of the same age.
Standardized score
< 85
(below average)
Receptive vocabulary
N children
Proportion of total sample
Expressive vocabulary
N children
Proportion of total sample
85115
(average)
> 115
(above average)
8
19%
34
79%
1
2%
6
14%
35
81%
2
5%
Table 2. Results from follow-up language testing of 5-year-olds who attended the Moog Center
family school program. Standardized scores are reported and results are categorized based on below
average, average, and above average performance by hearing peers of the same age.
Standardized score
< 85
(below average)
Receptive vocabulary
N children
Proportion of total sample
Expressive vocabulary
N children
Proportion of total sample
Receptive language
N children
Proportion of total sample
Expressive language
N children
Proportion of total sample
Verbal intelligence
N children
Proportion of total sample
85115
(average)
> 115
(above average)
2
6%
29
85%
3
9%
1
3%
28
82%
5
15%
3
9%
27
79%
4
12%
8
23%
23
68%
3
9%
7
20%
23
68%
4
12%
141
CONCLUSION
We believe that many more children could be achieving
at these levels. The Moog Center program is now being
replicated at seven other Moog Curriculum Schools in the
United States, located in Albuquerque, NM; Buffalo, NY;
Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Columbia, MO; Minneapolis/
St Paul, MN; and Phoenix, AZ. The Moog Center program
is also being implemented in a school in Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
The current challenge for educating deaf children is that
there is a critical shortage of professionals to provide the
level of instruction and support needed for children with
hearing loss to achieve their potential in learning spoken
language. We hope that this article will inspire teachers,
speech-language pathologists, and audiologists to consider a
career working with these children and helping them
acquire the truly life-changing skill of using spoken
language to communicate.
REFERENCES
Berlin, C. I., & Weyland, T. G. (2003). The brain and sensory
plasticity: Language acquisition and hearing. Clifton Park, NY:
Thomson Delmar Learning.
Boothroyd, A. (1997). Auditory development of the hearing child.
Scandinavia Audiology, 26, 916.
Brooks, B. M. (2002). My baby and me: A book about teaching
your child to talk. Saint Louis, MO: Moog Center for Deaf
Education.
Bruns, C. C., Anthony, S., Halfman, P., McMahon, C., &
Morency, C. (1991). Ready, setlisten!. East Moline, IL:
LinguiSystems.
Brownell, R. (2000). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Test2000 edition. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Caplan, F. (1973). The first twelve months of life. New York:
Putnam.
DeGaetano, J. G., & Newman, K. M. (1994). Following auditory
directions. Wrightsville, SC: Great Ideas for Teaching!
Hayes, H., Geers, A. E., Treiman, R., & Moog, J. S. (in press).
Receptive vocabulary development in children with cochlear
implants: Achievement in an intensive auditoryoral educational
setting.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2007). Joint Committee on
Infant Hearing year 2007 position statement for early detection
and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 120(4), 898921.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language.
New York: Wiley.
Moog, J. S. (2002). Changing expectations for children with
cochlear implants. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 189, 138142.
Moog, J. S. (2007). The auditoryoral approach: A professional
perspective. In S. Schwartz (Ed.), Choices in deafness: A
parents guide to communication options (3rd ed., pp. 131158).
Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.
Moog, J. S., & Biedenstein, J. (2006). Epilogue: Major findings,
conclusions and implications for deaf education. Ear and
Hearing, 24, 121S125S.
Moog, J. S., Biedenstein, J., & Davidson, L. (1995). Speech
perception instructional curriculum and evaluation. St. Louis,
MO: Central Institute for the Deaf.
Moog, J. S., Stein, K. S., Biedenstein, J. J., & Gustus, C. H.
(2003). Teacher Assessment of Spoken Language. St. Louis, MO:
Moog Center for Deaf Education.
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language
learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 1128.
Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2006). Effects of early auditory
experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of
age. Ear and Hearing, 27, 286298.
Ponton, C. W., Don, M., Eggermont, J. J., Waring, M. D.,
Kwong, B., & Masuda, A. (1996). Auditory system plasticity in
children after long periods of complete deafness. NeuroReport,
8, 6165.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1987). Clinical Evaluation
of Language FundamentalsRevised. Austin, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1995). Clinical Evaluation
of Language Fundamentals, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
142
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND