Ditkowsky Fulcher Research Day 2009.pdf

Conversational Skills of Peer-to-PeerDiscourse in School-Aged Children withCochlear Implants and TypicallyDeveloping ChildrenKatrina FulcherFara DitkowskyMaster’s Thesis DefenseMay 1, 2009

Typically DevelopingChildren

Thesis Committee• Dr. Geralyn Timler• Dr. Jeff Higginbotham• Gretchen Swartzenberg

Previous Research• Pragmatic language• Conversational skills (Nino & Snow 1996)• Importance of adequate conversational skills(Place & Becker, 1991)

Previous Research (Cont.)• Analogue Tasks (Schley & Snow, 1992)– Elicit specific language• Comment to Question Ratio (Rutherford,2000)– 2:1 ratio between mother and children age 3

Purpose of Current Study• Research Questions:1. Do typically developing children use a ratio of twocomments to one question during conversationalspeech?2. How do comments, questions, question functions,contingency, topic shifts and interruptions varyacross conversational tasks?3. How do these conversational variables differ amongtypically developing children and children withcochlear implants?

Children with Cochlear Implants

Thesis Committee:• Dr. Jeff Higginbotham• Dr. Geralyn Timler• Dr. Kristi Buckley

Introduction• What is a cochlear implant?• Previous research– Cochlear Implants

Cochlear Implantshttp://thinkorthwim.com/?s=

Previous Research• Marschark (2007) – Deaf children may beunaware that they have not fully understood aconversational partner• Toe (2008) – Deaf children rely on simpleresponses during conversation• McKirdy (1982) – Deaf children use a narrowerrange of complexity and are less likely torespond accurately

Previous Research:Cochlear Implants• Paatsch (2008) - Deaf children tend to:• initiate more topic shifts• take longer turns• add more personal information rather thanrequest it• use less conversational devices

Purpose of Current Study• Research Questions:1. How do comments, questions, questionfunctions, contingency, topic shifts andinterruptions vary across conversational tasks?2. How do these conversational variablesdiffer among children with cochlear implantsand typically developing children?

Methods• Participants• Experimental Tasks• Data Analysis

Participants• Typically Developing– 1 Female, Mary*, 6 years 10 months– 1 Male, John*, 6 years 5 months• Children with Cochlear Implants– 1 Female, Amy*, 9 years 10 months– 1 Male, Joe*, 9 years 5 months*Pseudo-names were used for each participant

Experimental Tasks• Conversational Topic Picture Card Task– Purpose: elicit minimally structured small talkconversational task– Topics: birthday, favorite television show/movie,favorite holiday, family, favorite toy, friends,bullying, bee sting• Snack Task– Purpose: negotiation situation facilitating longer,more naturalistic utterance production

Data Analysis• Systematic Analysis of Language Transcription• Transcribed utterances in to T-Units• Coded for:•Comments•Questions•Contingency•Topic Shift•Interruptions•Overlapping Speech•Question Functions

Data Analysis (Cont.)• Question Functions– Introductory Questions– Invitation Questions– Follow-Up Questions– Repair Questions*Agreement measures were conducted on transcription andcoding variables

Results:Typically Developing Children• Comparison Across Tasks– Balance of conversational turns• Comment Question Ratio– Difference in ratio across each topic ofconversation

Mary454035302520Conversational Topic Picture Card TaskSnack Task151050Total UtterancesCommentsQuestionsIntroductory QuestionsInvitatory QuestionsFollow-Up QuestionsRepair QuestionsTopic ShiftsAbandoned UtterancesOverlapping SpeechInterruptionsJohn454035302520Conversational Topic Picture Card TaskSnack Task151050Total UtterancesCommentsQuestionsIntroductory QuestionsInvitatory QuestionsFollow-Up QuestionsRepair QuestionsTopic ShiftsAbandoned UtterancesOverlapping SpeechInterruptions

Conversational TopicPicture Card TaskSnack Task

Discussion:Typically Developing•Differences in comment to question ratio•Variability•Conversational flexibility•Comparison to conversational skills documentedin previous literature•Dorval & Eckerman (1984)

• LimitationsDiscussion (Cont.):Typically Developing– Small dyad size– Limited conversational sample• Future Research– Naturalistic environments

Results:Children with Cochlear Implants•Comparison between tasks• Question Function• Comment to Question Ratio• Overlapping Speech

Discussion:Children with Cochlear Implants• Comparison between tasks• Question Function• Comment to Question Ratio• Overlapping Speech within Topic Shifts• Limitations• Future Research

Results:Typically Developing Children andChildren with Cochlear Implants•Question Function•Overlapping Speech

30%38%13%0%

11%0%

Discussion:Typically Developing Children andChildren with Cochlear Implants• Question Function– Invitatory vs. Follow-Up Questions• Typically Developing: “Like your brother…?”• Cochlear Implant: “How ‘bout you?”• Overlapping Speech– Topic Shifts

Clinical Implications• Conversational flexibility• Therapeutic and diagnostic implication

References• Anderson, Karen (1989) Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (S.I.F.T.E.R.):The Interstate Printers &Publishers.• Bishop, D. (2003) Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC-2): Pearson Assessments.• Caissie, R. (2001) Conversational Topic Shifting and its Effect on Communication Breakdowns for Individuals withHearing Loss. The Volta Review, 102 (2), 45-46.• Donnelly, J. & Brackett, D. (1982) Conversational skills of hearing impaired adolescents: a simulated TV interview. ASHAConvention Presentation, Toronto, Canada.• Dorval, B. & Eckerman, C. (1984) Developmental Trends in the Quality of Conversation Achieved by Small Groups ofAcquainted Peers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49 (2).• Gillam, R.B. & Pearson N.A. (2004) Test of Narrative Language (TNL): Linguisystems.• Kaufman, A.S. & Kaufman N.L. (2006) Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2): Pearson Assessments.• Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002) Cognitive Development and Deaf Children. Educating Deaf Students:From Research to Practice, 113-134.• McKirdy, L. & Blank, M. (1982) Dialogue in Deaf and Hearing Preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25,487-499.• Paatsch, L. & Toe, D. (2008) Cracking the Conversational Code: Investigating the Conversational Skills of Deaf Children.ASHA Convention Presentation, Chicago, Illinois.• Place, K., & Becker, J. (1991) The Influence of Pragmatic Competence on the Likeability of Grade-School Children.Discourse Processes, 14, 227-241.• Schley, S. & Snow, C. (1992) The conversational skills of school-aged children. Social Development, 1 (1), 18-35.• Toe, D. & Paatsch, L. (2008) Understanding Questions: Pragmatic Skills of Deaf Children in a Game Context. ASHAConvention Presentation, Chicago, Illinois.

Thank You!Questions?