背景:词汇知识是语言发展的基本要素。有证据表明,聋儿和同龄听力同伴之间的词汇知识存在显着差异。与听力同行相比,这些差异使聋哑学生处于不利地位。这项研究的目的是调查某些类型的单词是否表征聋哑学生的词汇困难。我们的出发点是,需要这些知识来设计适应这些学生词汇发展特定需求的干预措施。
方法:我们评估了90名西班牙学生的词汇理解。样本包括45名听力学生和45名患有严重或严重听力损失的学生。两组都在小学后期(8至12岁)上学。他们使用西班牙皮博迪图片词汇测试-III进行了测试。使用百分位数和标准分数以及测试中的一组选定单词对两组的表现进行统计学比较。
结果:听力和聋人组之间的年龄没有显着差异,性别,社会文化水平。两组之间的百分位数和标准分数存在显着差异。在聋人组中,只有25个单词中的5个单词的错误率最高,两组之间的表现没有显着差异。对其余20个对聋哑学生特别具有挑战性的单词的定性分析揭示了感兴趣的结果,这有助于指导干预措施。
结论:结果表明,在小学最后几年,聋哑学生需要词汇干预。针对聋人学习者的专业支持服务应通过针对特定类型的词汇来进行干预,使这些词之间的语义关系更加透明,并促进对它们的更深入的理解。
BACKGROUND: Vocabulary knowledge is an essential element in language development. There is evidence of significant differences in vocabulary knowledge between deaf children and hearing peers of the same age. These differences put deaf students at a disadvantage when compared to their hearing counterparts. The aim of this study was to investigate whether certain types of words characterise the lexical difficulties of deaf students. Our starting point is that this knowledge is needed to design interventions that are adapted to the particular needs of these students for their lexical development.
METHODS: We evaluated the lexical comprehension of 90 Spanish students. The sample comprised 45 hearing students and 45 students with severe or profound hearing loss. Both groups were attending the later years of primary school (8 to -12-year-olds). They were tested using the Spanish Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. The performance of both groups was statistically compared using percentiles and standard scores as well as a selected set of words from the test.
RESULTS: No significant differences between hearing and deaf groups were found by age, sex, and sociocultural level. Significant differences were found between groups in their percentile and standard scores. There were no significant differences in performance between the two groups on only five of the 25 words with the highest error rate in the deaf group. The qualitative analysis of the remaining 20 words that were especially challenging for deaf students reveals results of interest which could help guide interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the need for lexical intervention for deaf students in the final years of primary school. The specialised support service for deaf learners should approach the intervention by targeting a specific type of vocabulary, making the semantic relationships between these words more transparent and promoting a deeper understanding of them.