Volume 13, Issue 6 (2023)
LRR 2023, 13(6): 395-425 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghasemi T, Navidinia H, Rastguo Moghadam M, Tirani Niknejad H. Analysis and Comparison of Oral Language Quality in Hearing Children with Hearing Loss Ones Having Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants from the Two Aspects of Syntax and Semantics. LRR 2023; 13 (6) :395-425
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48118-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-48118-en.html
1- Master of Arts in Linguistics, English Language Department, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
2- Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Language Department, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran , navidinia@birjand.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
4- PhD. in Linguistics, Khorasan Cochlear Implant Center, and Shanava Gostar Speech Therapy Center, Mashhad, Iran
2- Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, English Language Department, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran , navidinia@birjand.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran
4- PhD. in Linguistics, Khorasan Cochlear Implant Center, and Shanava Gostar Speech Therapy Center, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract: (1610 Views)
Although the hearing skills of children with hearing loss are improved with the help of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and speech therapy, they have difficulties understanding and producing language because of their delayed hearing onset. Considering that these children go to school with their hearing peers, it is needed that their oral language performance be compared with the hearing students. Hence, the present study analyzed and compared the oral language skills of children with hearing loss having hearing aids and cochlea implants, with their hearing counterparts. For this purpose, 39 children aged 6-8 years were examined by the Told-p:3 test. The participants included 16 hearing children, 13 children with cochlear implants, and 10 children with hearing aids. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The results showed no significant difference in syntactic and semantic skills of children having hearing aids and cochlear implants. However, the findings indicated a significant difference between hearing children and children with hearing loss ones having hearing aids and cochlear implants in their semantic and syntactic skills. Therefore, it is needed that children with hearing loss go through verbal-auditory rehabilitation training until they reach the hearing level of hearing children. Neglecting this issue can have detrimental effects on their educational achievements and future job performance.
2. Method
In this study, oral language of hearing and hearing loss children was compared from two aspects of listening and speaking. For this purpose, 39 children aged 6-8 years, including 16 hearing children, 13 children with cochlear implants, and 10 children with hearing aids were examined by using the told-p3 test. Deaf children had pre-lingual deafness and had received hearing aids or cochlear aids before the age of two, and have gradually been able to speak with auditory-verbal rehabilitation training. The Told-p3 test was used for data collection. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for all variables. For inferential statistics, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine the difference between the means in all three groups of children, and then the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the groups.
3. Results
The gathered data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. The results showed no significant difference in syntactic and semantic skills of children having hearing aids and cochlear implants (P.>0.05). However, the findings indicated a significant difference between hearing children and children with hearing loss ones having hearing aids and cochlear implants in their semantic and syntactic skills (P.<0.05). These children had a significantly worse performance than that of hearing children in receiving and understanding the meanings of words and sentences, providing verbal definitions of words and recognizing them, and understanding and applying the forms.
4. Conclusion
The findings of the study showed no significant difference in the quality of oral language between children with cochlear implants and hearing aids. However, there was a significant difference between hearing children and the two groups of hearing-loss children in the quality of oral language in terms of listening and speaking. Accordingly, because deaf children have poorer performance than that of hearing children, not paying enough attention to this issue can have detrimental effects on their educational achievements and future job performance. Therefore, the policy of teaching hearing-loss children in public schools along with hearing peers needs more reflection by educational policymakers. It is suggested that hearing loss children be helped by different interventions and rehabilitation programs before they start their education with their hearing peers.
- Introduction
2. Method
In this study, oral language of hearing and hearing loss children was compared from two aspects of listening and speaking. For this purpose, 39 children aged 6-8 years, including 16 hearing children, 13 children with cochlear implants, and 10 children with hearing aids were examined by using the told-p3 test. Deaf children had pre-lingual deafness and had received hearing aids or cochlear aids before the age of two, and have gradually been able to speak with auditory-verbal rehabilitation training. The Told-p3 test was used for data collection. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for all variables. For inferential statistics, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to examine the difference between the means in all three groups of children, and then the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the groups.
3. Results
The gathered data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. The results showed no significant difference in syntactic and semantic skills of children having hearing aids and cochlear implants (P.>0.05). However, the findings indicated a significant difference between hearing children and children with hearing loss ones having hearing aids and cochlear implants in their semantic and syntactic skills (P.<0.05). These children had a significantly worse performance than that of hearing children in receiving and understanding the meanings of words and sentences, providing verbal definitions of words and recognizing them, and understanding and applying the forms.
4. Conclusion
The findings of the study showed no significant difference in the quality of oral language between children with cochlear implants and hearing aids. However, there was a significant difference between hearing children and the two groups of hearing-loss children in the quality of oral language in terms of listening and speaking. Accordingly, because deaf children have poorer performance than that of hearing children, not paying enough attention to this issue can have detrimental effects on their educational achievements and future job performance. Therefore, the policy of teaching hearing-loss children in public schools along with hearing peers needs more reflection by educational policymakers. It is suggested that hearing loss children be helped by different interventions and rehabilitation programs before they start their education with their hearing peers.
Keywords: Oral language, children with hearing aids, children with cochlear implants, semantic and syntactic skills, Told-p:3.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |