SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikoloji Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 73

An Investigation of the Word Processing Skills of Deaf and Hearing Readers

İşiten ve İşitme Engelli Okuyucuların Kelime İşlemleme Becerilerinin Karşılaştırmalı Olarak İncelenmesi

Birkan GÜLDENOĞLU
TEVHİDE KARGIN
Paul MİLLER
Pages
18–38
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings from the present study indeed point that although deaf participants tested in the study processed written words slower but similar accuracy than their hearing counterparts, they performed worse (both in speed of processing and accuracy) in semantic processing of real words (word relatedness) than their hearing counterparts and this difference was also consistent according to the educational levels of the participants.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study investigates differences in the word processing skills between deaf and hearing readers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The par- ticipants were 153 students (78 of them hearing, 75 of them deaf) evenly and randomly recruited from three levels of education (primary = 3rd-4th graders; middle = 6th-7th graders; high = 9th -10th graders).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings from the present study indeed point that although deaf participants tested in the study processed written words slower but similar accuracy than their hearing counterparts, they performed worse (both in speed of processing and accuracy) in semantic processing of real words (word relatedness) than their hearing counterparts and this difference was also consistent according to the educational levels of the participants.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The present study investigates differences in the word processing skills between deaf and hearing readers. The par- ticipants were 153 students (78 of them hearing, 75 of them deaf) evenly and randomly recruited from three levels of education (primary = 3rd-4th graders; middle = 6th-7th graders; high = 9th -10th graders). The students were tested with four computerized paradigms assessing their processing of isolated real\\pseudo-word pairs under perceptual and conceptual conditions and their semantic word processing skills. Findings from the present study indeed point that although deaf participants tested in the study processed written words slower but similar accuracy than their hearing counterparts, they performed worse (both in speed of processing and accuracy) in semantic processing of real words (word relatedness) than their hearing counterparts and this difference was also consistent according to the educational levels of the participants.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın genel amacı, işiten ve işitme engelli okuyucuların kelime işlemleme becerilerini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Çalışmaya farklı sınıf düzeylerinde (3.-4., 6.-7., 9.-10. sınıf) öğrenim gören 75 işitme engelli ve 78 işiten olmak üzere toplam 153 öğrenci katılmıştır. Çalışmada veri toplamak amacıyla dört farklı kelime işlemleme işlemi kullanılmıştır. Bu işlemler sırasıyla, (a) gerçek kelimelerin algısal olarak işlemlenmesi, (b) gerçek kelimelerin kavramsal olarak işlemlenmesi, (c) anlamsız kelimelerin işlemlenmesi ve (d) gerçek kelimelerin anlamsal olarak işlemlenmesi şeklindedir. Araştırmanın verileri DMASTR adı verilen bir bilgisayar programı aracılığıyla toplanmış ve sonuçlar iki faktörlü MANOVA ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, işitme engelli okuyucu- ların kelime işlemleme sürecinde yeralan kelime çözümleme becerilerinde, işiten okuyuculara göre daha yavaş fakat benzer hata ortalamalarına sahip olduklarını göstermektedir. Buna karşın kelimelerin anlamlandırılması ve kelimeler arasındaki anlamsal ilişkinin bulunması becerilerinde ise işitme engelli okuyucuların, işiten akranlarına göre hem daha yavaş hem de daha çok hata ortalamalarına sahip oldukları araştırmanın bulguları arasında yer almaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLDENOĞLU, B., KARGIN, T., MİLLER, P. (2014). An Investigation of the Word Processing Skills of Deaf and Hearing Readers. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 73, 18–38. https://ajindex.com/articles/357552

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Alegria, J., Leybaert, J., Charlier, B. ve Hage, C. (1992). On the origin of phonological representations in the deaf: Hear- ing lips and hands. J. Alegria, D. Holender, J. Junça de Morais ve M. Radeau, (Ed.), Analytic approaches to human cognition içinde (107-132). Brussels: Elsevier Science. Beech, J. R. ve Harris, M. (1997). The prelingually deaf young reader: A case of reliance on direct lexical access? Jour- nal of Research in Reading, 20, 105-121.
  2. Blauch, B. ve Besner, D. (1991). Visual word recogni- tion: Evidence for strategic control of lexical and nonlexical routines in oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 644-652.
  3. Campbell, R. ve Wright, H. (1988). Deafness, spelling and rhyme: How spelling supports written word and picture rhyming skills in deaf subjects. The Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(4), 771-788. Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies. (1993). Data from the 1992-93 Annual Survey of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Chamberlain, C. ve Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between ASL and reading. C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford ve R. I. Mayberry, (Ed.), Language acquisition by eye içinde (221-259).
  4. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Charlier, B. L. ve Leybaert, J. (2000). The rhyming skills of deaf children educated with phonetically augmented speech reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 349-375.
  5. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. London: Harp- er & Row. Durgunoğlu, A. ve Öney, B.(1999). A cross-linguistic compraison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 11, 281-299.
  6. Durgunoğlu, A. ve Öney, B.(2002). Phonological aware- ness in literacy acquisition: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 245-266.
  7. Dyer, A., MacSweeney, M., Szczerbinski, M. ve Camp- bell, R. (2003). Predictors of reading delay in deaf adolescents: The relative contributions of rapid automatized naming speed and phonemic awareness and decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 215-229.
  8. Forster, K. (1999). DMASTR home page. http://www.u. arizona.edu/~kforster%20/dmastr/dmastr.htm. Frost, R., Katz, L. ve Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multidi- mensional comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104-115.
  9. Gonzalez, J. E. J. ve Valle, I. H. (2000). Wo