A Preschooler's Language Is Not Growing
You are a DHH early childhood specialist. Mia, age 3 years 4 months, received a cochlear implant at 18 months. Her parents chose listening and spoken language; she attends a mainstream preschool five days a week with a spoken-language assistant for two hours daily. After 22 months of implant use, Mia has 35 spoken words, no two-word combinations, and mainly gestures and pulls adults toward what she wants. The audiologist reports the device is functioning and mappings are current; Mia responds to environmental sounds but inconsistently to speech at three feet. Her parents report frustration and tantrums. The preschool teacher says Mia 'ignores' her name. A speech-language pathologist recommends continuing spoken language only and reducing 'competing visual input.' You observe Mia watching peers' hands and using homemade signs with a Deaf classmate. The IFSP transition meeting is in three weeks.
1. What factors would you investigate before agreeing that Mia needs 'spoken language only'?
Read the worked answer
I would treat the 35-word vocabulary after 22 months of implant use as a signal to investigate, not as proof that spoken language alone is failing. First, access: the audiologist says the device is working, but I would ask for aided thresholds, speech perception data in noise, and classroom acoustic measurements-'working' does not guarantee consistent access to speech at three feet in a busy preschool. Second, language exposure: Mia has two hours per day of spoken-language support in a mainstream class; that may be insufficient intensity for a child with a significant hearing history. Third, modality: Mia's gesture use, watching peers' hands, and homemade signs suggest she is trying to communicate visually. That is not 'competing input' unless adults stop using spoken English; a bimodal approach can support both. Fourth, I would check whether Mia's hearing age-22 months-is being compared to her chronological age, and whether the team has measured receptive language in addition to expressive words. Finally, I would rule out middle-ear issues, map discomfort, and attention or processing concerns. Only after those data are gathered would I discuss changing the communication approach.
2. What evaluation and intervention plan would you recommend to the team?
Read the worked answer
Recommend a comprehensive communication evaluation rather than another period of the same service. The evaluation should include aided speech perception in quiet and noise; receptive and expressive language measures in spoken English, interpreted against Mia's hearing age; observation of functional communication across settings; and an ASL or sign-language assessment by a qualified professional, since she is already using gestures and signs. Ask the parents what communication success looks like at home and include their priorities. For intervention, propose a bimodal/bilingual approach for a trial period: continue spoken-language support, but add consistent visual access-key word signing, visual schedules, and adult modeling of signs paired with speech-without reducing spoken input. Increase intensity rather than reduce it: the current two hours per day may need to become a fuller language-rich program. Set measurable goals for receptive vocabulary, two-word combinations, and repair strategies, and review progress in 8–12 weeks. If progress remains flat despite good access and intensity, revisit the communication modality with the parents, not for them.
3. How would you discuss this with Mia's parents without dismissing their choice?
Read the worked answer
Begin by acknowledging that they chose listening and spoken language thoughtfully and that their goal-Mia communicating with the family-is shared. Use data, not labels: show the 35-word vocabulary, the lack of word combinations, and the observation that Mia is already using signs with a Deaf peer. Ask what they see at home and what worries them. Explain that adding visual communication is not the same as giving up on spoken language; it can reduce frustration and give Mia a way to communicate while spoken language develops. Avoid framing it as 'your choice failed.' Instead, propose a time-limited, data-driven trial with clear goals and a review date. Offer to include the audiologist and speech-language pathologist so the parents hear a consistent message. If they still prefer spoken-only, document their choice, continue to monitor, and revisit at the next IFSP review or sooner if Mia's frustration increases. The ethical line is to be honest about the risks of language deprivation while respecting the family's right to make the final decision.