83 First Language normally hearing peers and teachers Oral conversations between hearing-impaired children and their

of 26

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
PDF
26 pages
0 downs
6 views
Share
Description
83 First Language normally hearing peers and teachers Oral conversations between hearing-impaired children and their
Tags
Transcript
    http://fla.sagepub.com/  First Language  http://fla.sagepub.com/content/21/61/83The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/014272370102106104 2001 21: 83 First Language  Julian Lloyd, Elena Lieven and Paul Arnold normally hearing peers and teachersOral conversations between hearing-impaired children and their  Published by:  http://www.sagepublications.com  can be found at: First Language  Additional services and information for http://fla.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://fla.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:  http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:  http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://fla.sagepub.com/content/21/61/83.refs.html Citations:  What is This? - Jan 1, 2001Version of Record >> at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Chester on October 4, 2013fla.sagepub.comDownloaded from   83 Oral conversations between hearing-impaired children and their normally hearing peers and teachers* JULIAN LLOYD, University of Manchester ELENA LIEVEN, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary  Anthropology, Leipzig PAUL  ARNOLD, University of Manchester * This study was supported in part by E.S.R.C. research studentship number ROO429734533, awarded to the first author. We wish to thank all the teachers, pupils and parents who made this research possible. Thanks also to H. Brown, C. Morgans and V Hopwood for their contribution, and to K. Durkin, D. Power, C. Gallaway and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful suggestions.  Address for correspondence: Julian Lloyd, Department of Psychology, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL. E-mail: j.t.lloyd@talk21.com  ABSTRACT Twelve hearing-impaired children (mean age 8;8 years) were videotaped as they each constructed Lego models with two partners: a normally hearing peer and a teacher.  A comparison was made between their utterances and spoken turns with peers and teachers. The frequency of these did not differ between the two, although they took more total turns (verbal and nonverbal) with teachers than peers. With peers their turns contained more utterances and their contribution to the conversations was pro- portionally greater in relation to length of turns and utterances. Teachers talked more than peers and used longer turns and utterances. These differences are examined through a qualitative analysis. The educational implications and directions for future research are discussed. INTRODUCTION Over 20 years of research has emphasized that language is acquired in the context of natural conversations (Gallaway & Richards 1994, Snow & Ferguson 1977). From this perspective, factors that encourage  84 hearing-impaired (HI) children to participate in classroom conversations with teachers have been investigated (e.g., Huntington & Watton 1986, Wood, Wood, Griffiths & Howarth 1986). Interaction with teachers, however, is only part of the school experience. Peers also play an important role in children’s social and communicative development (Lederberg 1993, Stinson & Foster 2000). To date, relatively little research has focused on communication between HI and normally hearing (NH) children, especially beyond the preschool years (Gregory & Knight 1998, Lloyd 1999a). This paper compares conversations between HI children and their NH peers and teachers to evaluate the extent to which NH peers and teachers facilitate oral communication from the HI children. Ora/ism and the mainstreaming of hearing-impaired children Two factors underlie the present research: the need for a greater understanding of the oral environments of HI children and an increasing trend towards the integration of HI children. The question concerning which is the best mode of communication for HI students has generated considerable debate in the literature (for recent debates, see Gregory, Knight, McCracken, Powers & Watson 1998). There is still much discussion about whether HI students should be taught orally (Watson 1998); through Total Communication, the simultaneous use of speech and sign (Baker & Knight 1998); or through bilingualism, where English and Sign Language are treated as separate (Pickersgill 1998). Nevertheless, 90% of HI children are born to NH parents, and despite trends towards signing many parents still want their HI children to communicate through speech if possible (Gregory & Knight 1998). It is difficult to calculate how many HI children use speech as their main mode of communication.  A 1994 survey by the British  Association of Teachers of the Deaf suggested that approximately 67% were taught through the ’natural aural approach’ (Eatough 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1996). The natural aural approach aims to make the best use of children’s residual hearing through amplification and aims to facilitate language acquisition through replicating the features of parent-child interaction that research suggests are important in the language acquisition process. Its proponents argue that HI children go through the same stages of language acquisition as NH children, though their progress might be delayed as a result of their hearing loss (Lewis & Richards 1988). The extent to which HI children have to use speech as their main mode of communication obligates the need for a greater understanding of their oral environments. The second factor pertains to mainstream integration. The Warnock  85 Report (DES 1978) has led to an increasing trend towards integration in the education of children with special needs in Britain. It was estimated that about 85% of HI children are now taught in mainstream schools (Lynas, Lewis & Hopwood 1997, Watson & Parsons 1998). In addition, more HI children are now being offered in-class support rather thanwithdrawal. These trends mean that more HI children are now being taught alongside their NH peers than was the case just a short time ago (Watson & Parsons 1998). Despite this situation, relatively little research has focused on communication between HI and NH children. Teacher-child conversations Previous research on conversations between HI children and teachers has shown that high levels of conversational control by teachers, characterized by frequent questioning, elicitation of language forms, and speech corrections, tends to inhibit HI children’s participation in classroom conversations. Lower levels of conversational control, characterized by the increased use of declaratives (i.e, comments and statements) and phatics (i.e., devices used to keep the conversation flowing, such as ’Hm’, ’Okay’ and ’Right’), tend to result in HI children taking a more active role in classroom conversations. When teacher talk is less controlling, children are more likely to take the initiative in conversations, and their speaking turns tend to be longer (Wood et al. 1986, Wood, Wood, Griffiths, Howarth & Howarth 1982; see also Huntington & Watton 1986). This appears to be a robust finding. Subsequent research demonstrated a causal relationship between lower levels of conversational control by teachers and HI children’s increased participation in conversations (Wood & Wood 1984). Similar findings were also reported in classrooms where Signed English and cued speech was used (Power, Wood & Wood 1990, Wood and Wood 1991, Wood & Wood 1992a, Wood & Wood 1992b, Wood, Wood & Kingsmill 1992). Peer conversations Much of the previous work on peer interaction has focused on general measures of interaction (e.g., initiations, frequency and duration of interactions) rather than looking at communication in any detail (Gallaway & Woll 1994, Lederberg 1993, Lloyd 1999a).  A number of studies have examined the effects of hearing status, familiarity and language competence on interactions between HI and NH children. The evidence suggests that both HI and NH children prefer to interact with children of the same hearing status (Antia 1982, Minnett, Clark & Wilson 1994, Spencer, Koester & Meadow-Orlans 1994, Vandell & George 1981). Both groups of children also appear to be more successful at  86 interacting with children with whom they are familiar (Lederberg, Ryan & Robins 1986, Rodriguez & Lana 1996). It has also been reported that HI children with better linguistic skills are more likely to interact with NH children than are those with less linguistic ability (Brackett & Henniges 1976, Lederberg 1991). Recently, Niver & Schery (1994) investigated the extent to which HI children talked to their NH peers. They compared the amount of speech they used when interacting with either a familiar NH peer or their NH mother. Contrary to their hypothesis they found that mothers facilitated more speech than peers. Unfortunately, only the frequency and intelli- gibility of utterances was reported. No information on the length or type of utterances was presented.  A qualitative analysis might have revealed some important differences between the two sets of conversations. In sum, the data on peer interaction are fairly limited, especially beyond the preschool stage. The analyses used in earlier studies have provided information about some of the preferences HI and NH children have for interacting with each other. There is, however, a lack of in-depth studies of communication between HI and NH children.  As stated previously, approximately 85% of HI children in British schools are now integrated into mainstream to some extent (Lynas et al. 1997, Watson 1998).  A better understanding of communication between HI and NH children is therefore greatly needed. Peers and the acquisition of communicative competence What role do peers play in the acquisition of communicative competence? Their role has not been investigated fully (Romaine 1984). It appears, however, that it is complementary to that of adults. Communication, and particularly unstructured, spontaneous, informal communication, is fundamental to interaction between peers and the development of peer relationships (Stinson & Foster 2000). Interaction with peers provides input about aspects of communication that is not provided through adult-child interaction (Ostrosky, Kaiser & Odom 1993). In Western cultures adults tend to be the main source of language input during the early stages of syntactic development. During the school years, however, children continue to restructure and refine their grammars and develop their conversation and discourse skills. They become better able to maintain conversational topics, repair breakdowns in conversation, take listeners’ perspectives, and tell narratives (Pan & Snow 1999). Peers are a major source of input during the school years and become more important than adults as communication models as children get older (Romaine 1984). The reciprocity of peer interaction provides an
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks