3~4세 언어발달지체 아동의 몸짓단서에 따른 어휘 습득 능력 :Impact of gestures on vocabulary acquisition in 3 to 4 year-old children with development language delay

김난희

추천

검색

자료유형: 학위논문

저자정보: 김난희 (조선대학교, 조선대학교 대학원)

지도교수: 정부자

발행연도: 2016

저작권: 조선대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.

이용수15

이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)

2017

3-4세 언어발달지체 아동의 몸짓단서에 따른 어휘 습득 능력

김난희 , 정부자 언어치료연구 2017.04 학술저널

2016

3~4세 언어발달지체 아동의 몸짓단서에 따른 어휘 습득 능력

김난희 일반 2016.01 학위논문

이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기

본 연구의 목적은 언어영역에서만 결함을 보이는 언어발달지체 아동이 무단서조건, 모양몸짓단서조건, 기능몸짓단서조건의 3가지 단서조건에서 제시한 무의미 어휘를 습득하고 표현하는 데에 어떠한 차이를 보이는지 살펴보고자 하는 것이었다.
연구는 3~4세의 언어발달지체 아동 10명을 대상으로 실시하였으며, 취학 전 아동의 수용언어 및 표현언어 발달척도(PRES)로 측정한 통합언어연령이 자신의 생활 연령과 비교하여 10%ile 미만에 해당하거나 12개월 이상의 지체를 보이며, 한국판 라이터 비언어성 지능검사(K-Leiter-R)결과 정상평균인 80점 이상에 해당하는 아동들로 선정하였다. 본 연구에서는 총 9개의 사물을 3가지 단서조건(무단서조건, 모양단서조건, 기능단서조건)에 따라 나누어 무의미 단어로 이루어진 자극어휘를 제시한 다음 2분 정도 사물을 조작하도록 하였다. 각 실험조건이 끝날 때마다 자극어휘 이해평가 및 표현평가를 실시하였다.
연구 결과 몸짓단서 유무에 따른 자극어휘 이해 비율, 몸짓단서에 따른 자극어휘 이해 비율, 자극어휘 표현 시 구어와 몸짓 표현 비율의 차이가 통계적으로 유의하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 반면 자극어휘 몸짓표현 시 모양몸짓과 기능몸짓 비율의 차이는 통계적으로 유의한 것으로 나타났다.
이러한 결과를 통하여 구어와 함께 몸짓단서를 제시하는 것이 언어발달지체아동의 어휘습득에는 구어만 제시할 때와 차이가 없었으나, 해당어휘를 표현할 때에는 영향을 미치는 것을 알 수 있었다. 몸짓단서 조건이 어휘의 습득에 영향을 미치지 않은 것은 언어발달지체아동의 낮은 의사소통빈도, 빠른 연결의 어려움, 단서의 낮은 자극빈도, 암묵적 학습 능력의 결함 등으로 설명될 수 있다. 반면 아동이 제시된 어휘를 표현할 때는 제시된 모양몸짓보다는 기능몸짓을 유의하게 더 많이 사용하였다. 이는 아동이 제시된 자극어휘와 함께 해당 사물을 가지고 놀며 그 기능을 함께 경험하기 때문인 것으로 해석되었다. 한 가지 흥미로운 점은 아동들이 제시된 적이 없는 몸짓으로도 사물에 관한 표현을 만들어낼 뿐 아니라 학습되지 않은 사물의 기능에 관한 몸짓을 주로 표현하는 것이었다. 따라서 언어발달지체아동에게 어휘중재를 할 때 직접적인 경험을 통해 어휘 중재를 유도하며 몸짓단서를 함께 제시하여 아동이 좀 더 원활하게 어휘를 습득 할 수 있도록 프로그램이 개발되고 적용되어야 할 것이다.

The purpose of the present study is to examine the differences in acquisition and expression of nonsense words as suggested in 3 conditions of control condition, shape gesture cues, and function gesture cues.
Survey was conducted on 10 children of 3 to 4 years old with developmental language delay. Children selected were those whose language age measured by Preschool Receptive-Expressive Language Scale (PRES) was under 10%ile in comparison with their chronological age or showed delay of 12 months or more, and who had normal average of 80 points or more on Korean-Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised(K-Leiter-R). This study divided a total of 9 objects according to 3 condition cues (control condition cues, shape gesture cues, and function gesture cues), and presented stimulation vocabulary of nonsense words to the children, and then had them operate the objects for about 2 minutes. At the end of the session of each experimental condition, assessment on vocabulary understanding and expression were carried out.
Research results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of understanding of stimulation vocabulary according to whether there was a gesture cue or not, the rate of understanding of stimulation vocabulary according to gestures cues, and the rate of spoken language and gestures at the time when stimulation vocabulary was expressed. When stimulation vocabulary was expressed, the difference between the rate of shape gestures and the rate of function gestures was not statistically significant.
The results show that there was no difference for vocabulary acquisition of children with developmental language delay between suggestion of gesture cues along with spoken language and suggestion of spoken language only; but there was differences when the word concerned was expressed. It can be explained that gesture cues had no effect on vocabulary acquisition because of the low frequency of communication, difficulty with fast connection, low stimulation frequency of clues, and defects in implicit learning ability of children with developmental language delay. On the other hand, when the children expressed vocabulary, they used function gestures more frequently and more significantly than shape gestures suggested. The reason for this was supposed that the children experienced the functions of the objects concerned too when they played with the objects along with stimulation vocabulary. An interesting fact is that the children not only created expressions about objects with gesture that were never suggested but also mainly expressed gestures about the functions of the objects that they had never learned. Therefore, programs are expected to be developed and applied so that children can learn vocabulary more easily with inducement of vocabulary treatment by direct experience and suggestion of gesture cues along with that when vocabulary treatment is carried out for children with developmental language delay.

목 차
Ⅰ. 서론 ·····························································1
1. 연구필요성 및 목적 ···········································1
2. 연구문제 ······················································ 2
3. 용어정의 ······················································ 3
1) 언어발달지체 ················································3
2) 어휘 습득 능력 : 빠른 연결 ································3
3) 몸짓 단서 ····················································4
Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 ··················································· 5
1. 어휘습득 ····················································· 5
2. 몸짓과 어휘발달 ··············································7
1) 몸짓의 종류와 특성 ·········································7
2) 몸짓과 어휘 발달의 관계 ···································8
3. 언어발달지체아동의 어휘습득과 몸짓에 관한 선행연구··11
Ⅲ. 연구 방법 ·······················································15
1. 연구 대상 ······················································15
2. 연구 도구 ······················································15
1) 선별검사도구 ················································15
2) 실험도구 ·····················································16
3) 자극어휘 및 몸짓단서에 대한 내용타당도················19
3. 연구 절차 ······················································19
1) 예비검사 ·····················································20
2) 본검사 ························································20
4. 자료 분석 ······················································22
1) 자극어휘 이해 평가 ········································22
2) 자극어휘 표현 평가 ········································23
5. 통계 분석 ·····················································25
6. 평가자간 신뢰도··············································26
Ⅳ. 연구 결과 ······················································27
1. 몸짓단서에 따른 자극어휘 이해 정확도 ··················27
1) 몸짓단서 유무에 따른 자극어휘 이해 비율의 차이·····27
2) 몸짓단서에 따른 자극어휘 이해 비율의 차이 ··········28
2. 자극어휘 표현 유형 차이 ···································29
1) 자극어휘 표현 시 구어와 몸짓 표현 비율의 차이·······29
2) 자극어휘 몸짓표현 시 모양몸짓, 기능몸짓, 비율의 차이 ·······································································30
Ⅴ. 논의 및 결론····················································32
1. 몸짓단서에 따른 자극어휘 이해 정확도 ····················32
2. 자극어휘 표현 유형 차이 ·····································34
3. 제한점 및 제언 ················································38
참고문헌 ····························································39
부록 ·································································47

최근 본 자료

전체보기

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	원문	원문 PDF 파일
AI 학습용 데이터	원문 + 메타 (기본/상세)	원문 PDF 파일 및 서지정보 CSV
대량 구매용 데이터	B2B 구독 방식	특정 자료 한정으로 원문 접근 권한 부여
대량 구매용 데이터	URL 전달 방식	바로 PDF 뷰어를 열람할 수 있는 URL 제공

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
AI 학습용 데이터	기본 메타	발행기관명, 간행물명, 권호명, 권(vol), 호(issue), 통권, 발행연도, 발행월, 논문명, 저자명, 시작페이지, 종료페이지, 전체페이지, 상세페이지URL
상세 메타 데이터	발행기관 메타	발행기관 이명, 영문명, 창립연도, 홈페이지URL, 발행기관 소개
	간행물 메타	부제목, 간행물 유형, ISSN, ISBN, 최초발행연도, 폐간연도, 간행빈도, 발행주기, 등재사항, 이용수, 피인용수, 권호수, 논문수, 표지이미지
	논문 메타	작성 언어, 부제목, 대등제목, 목차, 키워드, 초록, 이미지, 참고문헌, 이용수, 피인용수, 논문활용도, DBpia통합주제분류, KDC분류, DDC분류, 한국연구재단분류, UCI, DOI
	저자 메타	소속기관, 소속부서, 직급, 연구분야, 연구키워드, 이용수, 피인용수, 저자 논문활용도

구분	그룹	데이터 항목
※ 결합형/맞춤형 메타 데이터는 신청 내용에 따라 다양하게 제공 가능
이용순위 정보	주제분야별 많이 이용된 논문	“인문학”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	이용기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“중고등학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	세부기관별 많이 이용된 논문	“서울대학교”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
	키워드별 많이 이용된 논문	“Chat GPT”에서 많이 이용된 논문 TOP100
키워드 정보	많이 이용된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 이용된 키워드
	많이 발행된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 발행된 키워드
	많이 검색된 키워드	특정기간/분야/저널 내 많이 검색된 키워드
	연구 트렌드 키워드	특정 키워드 연관 연구동향 분석 데이터 키워드

논문 기본 정보

이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (2)

초록· 키워드

목차

최근 본 자료

댓글(0)