evaluation of phonological awareness of quebec sign language...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of Phonological Awareness of Quebec Sign Language (LSQ)
1
Phonology is usually associated with sounds;
The issue of a phonological level for SLs is relevant to written language acquisition in deaf children who are enrolled in bilingual teaching programs;
The level of Phonological Awareness (PA) proficiency in hearing children at the preschool and kindergarten levels can be used to predict the reading skills they will have at the end of first grade year (Adams, 1990; Blachman, 1991).
Introduc)on
2
Phonological awareness
Phonological awareness refers to the conscious and explicit knowledge that words are decomposable into smaller units, either syllables or phonemes (Adams et al., 2000; Adams, 1990).
Only one research has dealt with the question of PA in sign languages (Di Perri, 2004)
Evaluation of the ability to manipulate phonological units of ASL in 29 deaf children (4 – 8 years old)
Adaptation of tasks built for spoken languages listed in the National Reading Panel Report (2000) + Yopp-Singer test of segmentation (Yopp, 1992): identification, categorisation, discrimination, fusion, segmentation and substitution
3
Objective of the study Considering:
Provide a statistical account of phonological awareness of LSQ in deaf children, teenagers and adults.
Objective:
4
IDENTIFICATION
GIFT
5
CATEGORISATION 1
WOOD LADYBUG 6
CATEGORISATION 2
7
COOKIE CHOCOLATE
STAR
NO YES
ANALYSE
8
Descrip)on of the tasks
9
The par)cipants
10
Ques)ons
Q1 Do all deaf groups have phonological awareness of LSQ?
Q2 Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the different types of tasks?
Q3 Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the different categories of phonemes?
11
Results Q1 Do all deaf groups have phonological awareness of LSQ?
12
Results Q2 Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the
different types of tasks?
13
Results Q2 Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the
different types of tasks?
14
Results Q2
Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the different types of tasks?
15
Results
16
Results Q3 Do all deaf groups have an equivalent mastery of the
different categories of phonemes?
All groups (adults and teenagers) show the same pattern :
Accuracy Hand Shape > Movement
RT Hand Shape < Movement
17
Results Q3
18
Results
All groups (adults and teenagers) are equivalent:
Accuracy Teenagers = Adults (except for Identification)
TR Teenagers = Adults (except for Analyse)
19
Results
IDENTIFICATION
ANALYSE
20
Results
Movement = the hardest parameter (except for the IDENTIFICATION task, where the handshape is the hardest parameter to identify)
Categorisation 2
21
Results
Analyse
22
Results
Categorisation 2
23
Discussion Handshape and movement are always distinct from each other
(handshape > movement)
Graphic representation of movement
Handshape = less variability Location and movement = more variability
Categorical perception (Emmorey et al., 2003)
Access to mental lexicon (Emmorey, 2002)
24
Conclusion
25
Acknowledgements parisot.anne-‐[email protected]
rinfret,[email protected]
Écoles Gadbois, Esther-Blondin and Lucien-Pagé
Annik Boissonneault, Michel Lelièvre, Dominique Lemay, Johanne Lemieux
26
All the Deaf teachers
Research assistants at the Groupe de recherche sur la LSQ et le bilinguisme sourd, UQAM
Evaluation of Phonological Awareness of Quebec Sign Language (LSQ)
27
Identification and Categorisation : no significant difference (handshape and location), high scores.
Discrimination :results significantly lower than Identification and Categorisation, high scores.
Movement = lowest results for Identification and Discrimination.
Movement = highest scores for Categorisation.
Discrimination = most difficult task for all children, (handshape > location > movement).
Globally: handshape, location > movement
Di Perri (2004)
28
APPLE
Examples of phonological distance
HANDSHAPE
LOCATION
MOVEMENT
29
Results Q4 Are they sensitive to the phonological distance?
ACCURACY
RESPONSE TIME
30