Evaluation of semantic aspect of language in students of ordinary, integrated and special schools

  • Atusa Rabiee Mail Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Ali Ghorbani Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Keywords:
Hearing loss, students, semantics

Abstract

Background and Aim: Children with severe and profound hearing loss have difficulties in communicating with others and educating at school. Effects of learning environment on children’s language skills have been recently focused and educating those students in ordinary schools has been proposed. According to this view, we compared perception of antonyms and synonyms as a semantic aspect of language in students of ordinary, integrated and special schools.
Methods: It was an analytic cross-sectional study. Three groups of students were enrolled: normalhearing students of ordinary schools and hearing-loss students of integrated and specials schools. Each group consisted of 25 students in fifth grade of elementary schools in Tehran city. Two written tests were used. Subjects wrote synonyms and antonyms for each word in the tests.
Results: Results denoted significant differences between scores of normal-hearing and hearing-loss students and also between hearing-loss students of integrated schools and hearing-loss students of special schools (p<0.05). In all three groups of the students, perception of antonyms was better than antonyms (p<0.001). Speech processing rate in normal-hearing students were higher than both groups of hearing-loss students (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The differences between normal-hearing and hearing-loss students shows that similar to other language skills, perception of synonyms and antonyms as a semantic aspect of speech is related to the hearing conditions and type of education. Moreover, the differences between two groups of hearing-loss students represent that speech stimulants and interaction with normal-hearing children could improve semantic aspect of speech in hearing-loss students.

References

1. Mohammadi R, shirazi TS, Nilipour R, Rahgozar M, Pourshahbaz A. Comparing of metaphoric expressions comprehension between hearing impaired students and normal students of junior high school. Journal of Rehabilitation.2010;10(4):15-20. Persian.
2. Yadegari F, Shirazi TS, Mehdipour Shahrivar N. Auditory-verbal comprehension development of 2-5 year old normal Persian speaking children in Tehran, Iran. Audiol. 2010;19(1):63-70. Persian.
3. Geers AE, Moog JS, Biedenstein J, Brenner C, Hayes H. Spoken language scores of children using cochlear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2009;14(3):371-85.
4. Titus JC, White Wl. Substance use among youths with hearing loss: a primer for student assistance professionals. J Student Assistance. 2009;20(3):14-8.
5. Watson L. The range of deaf and hearing impaired pupils. In: Watson L, Gregory S, Powers S, editors. Deaf and hearing impaired pupils in mainstream schools [paperback]. 1st ed. Great Britain: David Fulton Publishers Ltd; 1999.
6. Ormel EA, Gijsel MA, Hermans D, Bosman AM, Knoors H, Verhoeven L. Semantic categorization: a comparison between deaf and hearing children. J Commun Disord. 2010;43(5):347-60.
7. Jerger S, Lai L, Marchman VA. Picture naming by children with hearing loss: I. Effect of semantically related auditory distractors. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13(9):463-77.
8. Jerger S, Damian MF, Tye-Murray N, Dougherty M, Mehta J, Spence M. Effects of childhood hearing loss on organization of semantic memory: typicality and relatedness. Ear Hear . 2006;27(6):686-702.
9. Shafiei B. Comparison of ability of opposition words processing between hearing and hearing impaired student in fifth grade in Tehran. JRMS. 2003;8(4).
10. Aliken Lr, Groth-Marnat G. Psychological testing and assessment. 6th ed. Massachusetts: Allyn Bacon Inc; 2008.
11. Shariat Razavi E, Modarresi Y, Shafiee F, Azordegan F, Bani hashemi SM. Study the grammatical and lingual skills in hard of hearing children in the schools for the deaf in Tehran. Audiol. 1998;5(1-2):36-45. Persian.
12. Preisler GM, Ahlström M. Sign language for hard of hearing children - A hindrance or a benefit for their development? Eur J Psychol Educ. 1997;12(4):465-77.
13. Luckner JL, Cooke C. A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Am Ann Deaf. 2010;155(1):38-67.
14. Vohr B, Jodoin-Krauzyk J, Tucker R, Topol D, Johnson MJ, Ahlgren M, et al. Expressive vocabulary of children with hearing loss in the first 2 years of life: impact of early intervention. J Perinatol, 2011;31(4):274-80.
Published
2017-07-31
How to Cite
1.
Rabiee A, Ghorbani A. Evaluation of semantic aspect of language in students of ordinary, integrated and special schools. Aud Vestib Res. 21(2):57-65.
Section
Research Article(s)