Talk:Language teaching/Cochlear implants and language instruction

Chapter Review – Cochlear Implants and Language Instruction – Anna Richter
Reviewer: Emily McGuire Hi Anna, I enjoyed reading your chapter! I picked it because I have some background on the subject of cochlear implants, and was interested to see what you could dig up about language instruction! The following is a summary of the main points I wanted to make about your chapter, and I will also send you a Word document of your chapter with my comments in the side margin. The Word document contains the minor edits as well as some notes about the stuff I will cover on this Discussion page. The first thing I noticed about your page was that it was very well laid out. I appreciate your use of headings and subheadings and might follow your lead in formatting my own chapter! The layout gives the impression of a chapter that was well planned out and organized in a logical fashion. The picture you used for showing a cochlear implant was simple and clear, which is great. The worst thing I have ever come across in a textbook was a photo that was supposed to be clarifying something in the text, but was so complicated and full of detail that it only confused the reader. Your picture does not do that – awesome. I know it’s a bit tough to get pictures into Wikiversity if they aren’t already there (my chapter has no pictures yet…shame) but if you could find any more to add, they really make things look so much more interesting. First of all, let’s discuss citations. There are some areas where I feel citations are lacking, for example the sections on oral and total communication. Where is that information from? If you are simply summarizing the textbook, then Dr. Newman said citing isn’t necessary, but you will also get a better mark if you go out and find a different source for this information (and then cite it). This happens in a couple of other spots as well, and I have highlighted them in the Word document I will send you. Also, in some places you have cited using the Wikiversity format and in others you use APA and then sometimes you use both! I am guessing that this is a work in progress, but just in case, picking one or the other would be ideal. If you haven’t seen it already, there is a page explaining how to cite to an active link at the bottom of your chapter page, a la Wikipedia style (Dr. Newman included a link to this instructional page in his Peer Reviews PDF). I haven’t done this yet either but I am guessing it is required for our final versions. One of the areas I think you could improve on is the cochlear implant section. You are the only person who gets to write about them, and covering them in good detail would make your chapter more interesting. Like I said, I have some background in this area and would like to make some suggestions for further information you can include in this section. Firstly, I think it is crucial that you mention that there are two different kinds of deafness. In your chapter you make a global statement about deaf individuals having damage to their cochlea, and this is not always true. Deafness resulting from damage to the cochlea is called conductive deafness, while deafness resulting from impaired functioning of the auditory nerve is called nerve deafness (you can also become deaf through brain damage but this is rarer). Cochlear implants are helpful only to those with conductive deafness, because they take over auditory signalling at the level of the cochlea. You can definitely find good articles on this out there. Secondly, you fail to mention the most interesting and most important part of the cochlear implant, which is the microelectrode array that is inserted onto the bottom of the basilar membrane. The microelectrode array is the part of the implant that actually takes over signalling from the damaged cochlea, more specifically performs the signalling that would normally come from hair cells (which are the parts of the cochlea most likely to be damaged). I think it is important to give some detail on this. There are also some very cool pictures of it on Google… The only other section that I think needs a bit of work is the one on reading. I think you have some good information in there but it is not organized in a smooth and logical fashion. You end up repeating yourself a bit and bringing up topics two or three times instead of explaining it thoroughly the first time you mention it. It’s a simple matter of reading it through a few times though, and you should easily be able to rearrange it and simplify it so the reader gets all the facts in the right order. The rest of your sections are written very well (with a couple of small exceptions which I have highlighted in your Word document). You have done a great job of presenting multiple points of view when it comes to controversial research and conclusions that have been put out there over the years. Sometimes the direction of your arguments gets a little vague, but overall well done. Be careful to modify your statements with words like “possible”, “suggested”, and “proposed”, and to keep citing as much as you can, so that your writing doesn’t come across as a personal opinion rather than a research review. That’s all from me! I think this is a great first version and with a few small edits and bit of elaboration, it will be a phenomenal final chapter. Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns, at epmcguire@gmail.com or emily.mcguire@dal.ca :)