مهارت درخواست شفاف سازی و پاسخ به آن در کودکان کم شنوای دارای کاشت حلزون (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
راهبرد اصلاح مکالمه یکی از مهم ترین مهارت های کاربردشناختی است که درخواست برای شفاف سازی و پاسخ به درخواست شفاف سازی را شامل می شود. در این مطالعه توصیفی تحلیلی از نوع مقطعی، مهارت اصلاح مکالمه در 15 کودک دارای کاشت حلزون با 15 کودک شنوای همتا شده ازنظر سن زبانی (با استفاده از آزمون رشد زبان) مقایسه شد. مهارت های درخواست شفاف سازی و پاسخ به درخواست شفاف سازیِ آزمودنی ها در تعامل دوتایی کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون با کودکان شنوای ناآشنا ارزیابی شد. به این منظور، مکالمه های کودکان پیاده سازی و کدگذاری شد و داده های به دست آمده بر اساس متغیرهای مطالعه شده با آزمون آماری یو من ویتنی تجزیه وتحلیل شدند. نتایج نشانگر تفاوت معنادار بین میانگین تعداد دفعات درخواست شفاف سازی در گروه کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون و کودکان شنوای همتا از نظر سن زبانی بود (05/ 0 >p)، ولی میانگین تعداد راهبردهای پاسخ به درخواست شفاف سازی کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون در مقایسه با کودکان شنوا تفاوت آماری معناداری نداشت. همچنین، کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون از مهارت درخواست شفاف سازی، بیشتر از کودکان شنوای همتاشده با سن زبانی استفاده کردند و این نکته می تواند نشانگر آن باشد که رسش مهارت درخواست شفاف سازی نیاز به زمان طولانی تری دارد و احتمالاً کودکان شنوا باتوجه به سن تقویمی شان، هنوز در این مهارت به رشد کافی نرسیده بودند. امکان دیگر می تواند این باشد که کودکان شنوای طبیعی، به رغم داشتن سن زبانی همسان با کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون، باز هم به دلیل برخورداری از شنوایی طبیعی، دسترسی بیشتر و مطلوب تری به اطلاعات شنیداری داشته و به همین جهت، به اندازه کودکان دارای کاشت حلزون نیازی به درخواست شفاف سازی نداشته اند.The Skill of Requesting Clarification and Responding to the Request for Clarification in Children with Cochlear Implant
The strategy of conversational repair is one of the most important pragmatic skills, which includes requesting clarification and responding to the request for clarification. In this cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study, the conversational repair skills of 15 children with cochlear implants were compared with 15 language age-matched hearing children TOLD-P:3. The aforementioned skills of subjects were evaluated in the dyadic interactions of the children with cochlear implants and unfamiliar hearing children. For this purpose, the children's conversations were transcribed and coded. The results showed a significant difference between the average number of requests for clarification in the group of children with cochlear implants, and hearing children matched in terms of language age (p < 0.05), but the average number of strategies of responding to the request for clarification in children with cochlear implants was not significantly different from that of the hearing children. Also, children with cochlear implants used the skill of requesting clarification more than the hearing children matched based on the language age, which can indicate that the skill of requesting clarification takes longer to develop, and hearing children, considering their chronological age, are probably not mature enough in their use of this skill. Another possibility could be that children with normal hearing, despite having the same language age as children with cochlear implants, still have more and better access to auditory information due to having normal hearing, and therefore, do not need as many requests of clarification as children with cochlear implants.
Keywords: conversational repair, request for clarification, response to the request for clarification, children with cochlear implants, conversation.
Introduction
Many hearing-impaired children, even if they have good lexical and syntactic skills, may not be able to use these skills properly in social contexts, and as a result, show deficiencies in conversational skills. The strategy of conversational repair is one of the most important pragmatic skills, which includes requesting clarification and responding to the request for clarification. The present study was conducted with the aim of investigating the skill of conversational repair (request for clarification and response to the request for clarification) in children with cochlear implants and their language-age-matched hearing counterparts. The question of the present research is whether or not the skill of requesting clarification and responding to it in cochlear-implanted children is different from their hearing peers in terms of language age.
Literature Review
Ackerman (1983) proposed a three-component model for the skill of requesting clarification. This model includes the three components of detection, evaluation, and clarification, based on which, in case of an ambiguous verbal message, three steps are taken: the first step is to detect or recognize the ambiguous message; the second is to evaluate what has led to the ambiguity in the statement; and finally, the third is to clarify the ambiguous message by asking questions. Church et al. (2017) in a study on 93 hearing-impaired children with an age range of 7-12 years - who were matched with hearing children based on chronological age and language age - showed that hearing-impaired children performed worse than their hearing counterparts on rapid responding, topic maintenance, and requesting for clarification when asking and answering about their favorite topic, and use non-verbal behavior instead of conversational repair. Samuelsson and Lyxell (2014) also investigated seven children with cochlear implants in the age range of three years and six months to six years and nine months in daily interactions, and concluded that the skills of requesting clarification in children with cochlear implants were better than those of hearing children in dyadic interactions while playing. Lichtig et al. (2011), examining the communication behaviors of 127 hearing children with and without hearing loss between the ages of 3 and 6 years during free play, showed that hearing children in their daily situations were more skillful in requesting for clarification than their hearing-impaired counterparts. Mousavi et al. (2014) compared some pragmatic abilities, including topic maintenance, turn-taking, and conversational repair, in Persian-speaking children with severe hearing loss aged 4 to 6 years with their hearing peers. The authors found that there was a significant difference between the hearing and hearing-impaired groups on the average duration of topic maintenance, turn-taking scores, conversational repair of the kind of requesting for clarification, and conversational repair of the kind of responding to the request for clarification. Mousavi et al. concluded that hearing-impaired children were weaker in using pragmatic skills than hearing children.
Methodology
In this cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study, the conversational repair skills of 15 children with cochlear implants were compared with those of 15 hearing children matched in terms of linguistic age. The language age of these children was matched using the Test of Language Development (TOLD-P3). In this research, the personal information questionnaire of hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants, the personal information questionnaire of hearing children, and the Test of Language Development (TOLD-P3) were used. The skills of requesting clarification and responding to the request for clarification in the hard of hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants were observed and evaluated in their dyadic interactions with unfamiliar hearing children. The children's conversations were transcribed and coded, and the obtained data were analyzed based on the studied variables using the U-Mann-Whitney statistical test.
Results
The results of this research showed that the average number of requests for clarification in the group of children with cochlear implants when compared to the language age-matched hearing children had a statistically significant difference (P<0.05), but the average number of strategies to respond to the request for clarification did not show any significant difference between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the average conversational balance in children with cochlear implants and hearing children of the same language age (p < 0.05). The average communication failure in children with cochlear implants was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of hearing children of the same language age.
Conclusion
The average number of requests for clarification in children with cochlear implants was higher than those of hearing children of the same language age. One possible reason may be that sometimes children with cochlear implants may not fully understand what their interlocutor is saying due to various reasons, such as environmental noise, and this causes an increase in the number of requests for clarification in their conversation.
Children with cochlear implants used more clarification requests than hearing children. On the other hand, the average communication failure in children with cochlear implants was significantly higher than that of their language-age-matched hearing counterparts. This point could indicate an interesting but not surprising result: children with cochlear implants have hearing problems (or perhaps language problems due to late language acquisition), and this high-frequency perceptual weakness causes poorer understanding. Therefore, these children use a lot of requests for clarification in order to understand the speaker's intention. Sometimes these strategies are successful, and sometimes they are not, leading to communication failures.
The greater use of clarification requests in children with cochlear implants compared to healthy children with the same language age could also have another reason. Children with cochlear implants may face hearing problems to some extent; this is an issue that does not apply to hearing children, and for this reason, there is a greater need to ask for clarification in children with cochlear implants. This is despite the fact that healthy children, due to not having hearing problems - even when they have the same language age as children with cochlear implants - understand the speaker more easily, and consequently, generally do not need to make as many requests for clarification as those with cochlear implants. This can be another reason for the significant difference in the requests for clarification between children with cochlear implants and healthy children.
Another reason could be that deaf children with cochlear implants possess more skill in conversational repair simply because of their older age and, therefore, greater development than hearing children.
Finally, the findings of the present study show that children with cochlear implants show different communication behaviors than children with normal language development matched to their language age, and this issue can affect their ability to communicate in different environments, including academic and social environments. Therefore, therapists, trainers and teachers involved in the education or treatment of these children should pay attention to these communication differences and use the appropriate communication strategies when working with these children.
تبلیغات
