Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 In a message dated 1/1/2004 12:45:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, beat4girl@... writes: > However, at an early age, we were STRONGLY > discouraged from letting him watch TV at all by the HI teachers > because it is so visual and they need auditory input. This confuses me. I try to limit my kids tv just because I want them to get outside and play and use their imaginations. But to say that it should be banned because it is visual not auditory input confounds me. Input is input, it is information. It builds the kids' reference base, whether it is about silly sitcomes and the people's overplayed reactions or a history channel program on the pyramids. It is all broadening their knowledge base. We've never limited any form of input. Visual input is incredibly valuable. My kids have gotten it from TV, from museums, from simply looking out the car windows. Since my son's access to the world is becoming more and more visually based, how could I possibly consider cutting him off from any source? I don't understand this philosophy at all, and it has never been suggested by anyone. Color me confused -- Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 > I don't understand this philosophy at all, and it has never been suggested by > anyone. > > Color me confused -- Jill > > LOL Jill, As I said these instructions came from single girls with no kids that need to be entertained. We didn't heed their advice and Jake did watch the education TV and video's so I could cook, etc. The reasoning was that a kid with a profound loss that is little, like Jake was 20 months at that time, couldn't understand the auditory input and would be too focused on the visual. They even reprimanded us for using flash cards with pictures and having his brother call out the words and he would pick the right picture. It made his brother feel involved, which is the only reason we did it. But, we were teaching him words and not running speech...Well, tough....LOL It was a stinking game. Geez, can you tell I didn't get along with that teacher?????? I guess I should be locked up because Jake spends alot of time on the weekends on the playstation and watching cartoons. She would love that! Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Personally I think kids with hearing impairment need to be more visual. Yes if they are going to learn how to talk they need to be trained to hear things and listen better, but when one sensory organ isn't functioning well the other has to take up the slack. This is where we ran into trouble with . He is unable to utilize the auditory input but for the longest time I believe his visual perception was off because he couldn't focus visually. He now is, but he is 3 years old and we have to make up for lost time here. So if only he was more visually oriented from the beginning we could have accomidated for his lack of ability to hear clearly. Anyway my point is that improving visual ability in a hearing impaired child can only help, for what they can't hear they can work on reading lips which is visual. You can t insist that a HI child hear what they can't hear, but you can make up for what they can't hear with visual attention. Anyway my personal view. I agree apparently the people giving you that advise didn't know much about how to teach a HI child. Hopefully they weren't teachers of HI children.. lol. -- Re: Why no TV? > I don't understand this philosophy at all, and it has never been suggested by > anyone. > > Color me confused -- Jill > > LOL Jill, As I said these instructions came from single girls with no kids that need to be entertained. We didn't heed their advice and Jake did watch the education TV and video's so I could cook, etc. The reasoning was that a kid with a profound loss that is little, like Jake was 20 months at that time, couldn't understand the auditory input and would be too focused on the visual. They even reprimanded us for using flash cards with pictures and having his brother call out the words and he would pick the right picture. It made his brother feel involved, which is the only reason we did it. But, we were teaching him words and not running speech...Well, tough....LOL It was a stinking game. Geez, can you tell I didn't get along with that teacher?????? I guess I should be locked up because Jake spends alot of time on the weekends on the playstation and watching cartoons. She would love that! Elaine All messages posted to this list are private and confidential. Each post is the intellectual property of the author and therefore subject to copyright restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 , the teacher were actually Master's Degree Deaf Educators that went to a very good school for deaf ed teachers. Apparently they learned this at school, but the audiologists have never been so stringent about it. I do recall them saying it was better to read to them than let them watch TV, but you can't read to them and cook/clean at the same time...hehe Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 no kidding. When was really clingy sometimes the only way to get him to let me go was to put on Toy Story...lol. Sometimes we just need a break. I have to also mention that not too long ago teachers and speech therapists were told not to sign to children who were speech delayed or HI because then they wouldn't learn how to talk. They soon realized that, this was not true and that sign actually often helps improve speech skills and comprehension, and recomends it. There are some with the old school view but it has been proven that was wrong. So just because they are teaching these people this doesn't mean it's right. -- Re: Why no TV? , the teacher were actually Master's Degree Deaf Educators that went to a very good school for deaf ed teachers. Apparently they learned this at school, but the audiologists have never been so stringent about it. I do recall them saying it was better to read to them than let them watch TV, but you can't read to them and cook/clean at the same time...hehe Elaine All messages posted to this list are private and confidential. Each post is the intellectual property of the author and therefore subject to copyright restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 no kidding. When was really clingy sometimes the only way to get him to let me go was to put on Toy Story...lol. Sometimes we just need a break. I have to also mention that not too long ago teachers and speech therapists were told not to sign to children who were speech delayed or HI because then they wouldn't learn how to talk. They soon realized that, this was not true and that sign actually often helps improve speech skills and comprehension, and recomends it. There are some with the old school view but it has been proven that was wrong. So just because they are teaching these people this doesn't mean it's right. -- Re: Why no TV? , the teacher were actually Master's Degree Deaf Educators that went to a very good school for deaf ed teachers. Apparently they learned this at school, but the audiologists have never been so stringent about it. I do recall them saying it was better to read to them than let them watch TV, but you can't read to them and cook/clean at the same time...hehe Elaine All messages posted to this list are private and confidential. Each post is the intellectual property of the author and therefore subject to copyright restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 In a message dated 1/1/2004 11:28:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, beat4girl@... writes: > I guess I should be locked up because Jake spends alot of time on the > weekends on the playstation and watching cartoons. She would love > that! > Elaine > > Elaine, just wait 20 years until Jake is earning a mint designing those games. Then you can go back and tell her that she was wrong. LOL Our Ian is 13 and loves comic books, classic cartoons, and Playstation as well. Recently he has gotten into Monty Python, Mel classics and Airplane ty[pe spoof movies (with captions). And he gets the witty banter ... what a joy for us! When he was younger and struggling, we had Ian read aloud to his younger sister. It made him feel so grown up and his skills improved dramatically. We read aloud to them as well. We still read aloud, but now we read the Lemony Snicket books because they make us all laugh. I still think that input is input no matter what form it takes. I'd never encountered the advice to stick to auditory input in order to train my son to use his hearing, and I think it sounds ridiculous. He can hear what he can hear, and that ability is deteriorating. So, I'll give him input of all kinds any time I can. Access to language, any language in any form. We are a very verbal family -- our kids are older than most on this list and have learned to debate/support their opinions over the dinner table. When he was younger, to get Ian to practice expressing himself, we started asking what his favorite part of the day was, or favorite part of the movie we just saw. And we'd ask " why " it was better than another part -- explain it to us. He also has short-term memory problems, so it was also a device for helping with that. Plus it made for some nice dinner conversation. We did it with both kids. The initial focus is to talk and express their thoughts and opinions, but it had an additional bonus of pointing out what we have to be grateful for in our everyday lives. For instance, a favorite part of a day this summer: firing off the rockets in the field. Why?: because I got to do it with Dad and we fired off the rockets that we'd made and painted last week. One from this past week: Making meatballs for dinner. Why: because I like to cook with Dad. (who is a better cook than Mom) Viola ... self expression and the realization that joy can come from the simple things. Okay ... I rambled off topic as usual. But I still think that any way I can get input into this boy's brain is just dandy. I limit tv and Playstation for the same reasons as every other parent, not because it is too visual. I would never have banned the Tank Engine or Mr from Ian's morning routine. Power Rangers I could have lived without, but he loved them. Our world is becoming more and more visually based, which works for my son who is getting more and more of his information that way. Best -- Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 In a message dated 1/2/2004 10:19:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, lavhome@... writes: > Some of our kids we allow to watch tv freely, > some we allow certain movies to be watched, and some we will not allow to > watch at all. They all know who they are, and why we have that rule. > Again, please don't misunderstand my post because we are not anti-tv. > Tish > Tish, Your letter made me laugh. Those are the best reasons to limit tv watching. It's why we limit it. My daughter can entertain herself for hours building houses for her beanies out of cast off cereal boxes, colored paper and glue. Our son is the same except he was never that creatively inclined, he liked coloring books. Now he goes outside to play or burrows into a book. They can also become vidiots (video+idiot) if we let them live in front of the tv. We have cable and we have rules. Breaking the rules means that cable stays off and Playstation is also taken away. They don't break the rules. Best -- Jill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Hello all, I don't remember who posted the original email about the " no t.v. " but I found that extremely interesting. Here is why.. We have 7 adopted children, some international and some domestic. Our oldest daughter came from Guatemala at 5 years old and had probably never seen tv before. She was extremely creative and could find ways to play with a simple blanket all day long. After maybe 5 months with our family who LOVES tv, she stopped her creative playing. She loved tv and would sit in front of it, totally lost into it, any time she could get by with it. At that point I called our cable company and unhooked the cable much to the distress of my husband. Our last 3 adopted kids came southern US from a generation of family who was in the social system their whole lives. However they get by with it, they had a big screen tv and saw every movie put on the market (but had no food in the house). These kids even three years later can not spontaniously play. They are extremely bright (one of them is deaf) but have no idea what " play " is. I honestly attribute that to the amount of tv watching they did. They didn't need to play because the tv did that for them visually. Now, please understand I am not saying any family who watches tv is a bad family. We love tv here, and there are many, many positive aspects of watching certain programs. But, I also think there is a lot of valid concern for the amount of time they spend in front of it, which is probably different for each child. Some of our kids we allow to watch tv freely, some we allow certain movies to be watched, and some we will not allow to watch at all. They all know who they are, and why we have that rule. Again, please don't misunderstand my post because we are not anti-tv. Tish .. I do recall them saying it was better to read to > them than let them watch TV, but you can't read to them and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Hello all, I don't remember who posted the original email about the " no t.v. " but I found that extremely interesting. Here is why.. We have 7 adopted children, some international and some domestic. Our oldest daughter came from Guatemala at 5 years old and had probably never seen tv before. She was extremely creative and could find ways to play with a simple blanket all day long. After maybe 5 months with our family who LOVES tv, she stopped her creative playing. She loved tv and would sit in front of it, totally lost into it, any time she could get by with it. At that point I called our cable company and unhooked the cable much to the distress of my husband. Our last 3 adopted kids came southern US from a generation of family who was in the social system their whole lives. However they get by with it, they had a big screen tv and saw every movie put on the market (but had no food in the house). These kids even three years later can not spontaniously play. They are extremely bright (one of them is deaf) but have no idea what " play " is. I honestly attribute that to the amount of tv watching they did. They didn't need to play because the tv did that for them visually. Now, please understand I am not saying any family who watches tv is a bad family. We love tv here, and there are many, many positive aspects of watching certain programs. But, I also think there is a lot of valid concern for the amount of time they spend in front of it, which is probably different for each child. Some of our kids we allow to watch tv freely, some we allow certain movies to be watched, and some we will not allow to watch at all. They all know who they are, and why we have that rule. Again, please don't misunderstand my post because we are not anti-tv. Tish .. I do recall them saying it was better to read to > them than let them watch TV, but you can't read to them and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Tish, I think the reasons you gave are behind the thinking this particular group of teacher had for having no or very limited TV. We never watched TV when I was little, not like today. I was allowed to watch 30 mins before school and maybe 30 after if I was really good. Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 We hardly ever watched TV when I was growing up.....I really don't know what we did with our time. I do know I used to sneak into my mom's room and get her " True Confessions " magazine out from under her bed and read it. For any of you maybe late 40's parents, you may remember the True Confessions magazine. They would probably be similar to our Harlequin paperbacks now. A little racy for a 14 year old but I loved them! Even more than the silly shows that we had on tv back then. Tish....having a little bit of a nostalgic moment here...... > Tish, I think the reasons you gave are behind the thinking this > particular group of teacher had for having no or very limited TV. > > We never watched TV when I was little, not like today. I was allowed > to watch 30 mins before school and maybe 30 after if I was really > good. > Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 We hardly ever watched TV when I was growing up.....I really don't know what we did with our time. I do know I used to sneak into my mom's room and get her " True Confessions " magazine out from under her bed and read it. For any of you maybe late 40's parents, you may remember the True Confessions magazine. They would probably be similar to our Harlequin paperbacks now. A little racy for a 14 year old but I loved them! Even more than the silly shows that we had on tv back then. Tish....having a little bit of a nostalgic moment here...... > Tish, I think the reasons you gave are behind the thinking this > particular group of teacher had for having no or very limited TV. > > We never watched TV when I was little, not like today. I was allowed > to watch 30 mins before school and maybe 30 after if I was really > good. > Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 We hardly ever watched TV when I was growing up.....I really don't know what we did with our time. I do know I used to sneak into my mom's room and get her " True Confessions " magazine out from under her bed and read it. For any of you maybe late 40's parents, you may remember the True Confessions magazine. They would probably be similar to our Harlequin paperbacks now. A little racy for a 14 year old but I loved them! Even more than the silly shows that we had on tv back then. Tish....having a little bit of a nostalgic moment here...... > Tish, I think the reasons you gave are behind the thinking this > particular group of teacher had for having no or very limited TV. > > We never watched TV when I was little, not like today. I was allowed > to watch 30 mins before school and maybe 30 after if I was really > good. > Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.