V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENONeprints.usm.my/32323/1/V._CHADRA_SHAKARAN_24(NN).pdf · Articulate Quizmaker Figure 4.14 A screenshot of the quiz results using Articulate 98 Quizmaker

EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODESON THE LEARNING OF SIGN LANGUAGEAMONG HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTSWITH DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES

V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENON

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

2016

EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODES ON THELEARNING OF SIGN LANGUAGE AMONG

HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTSWITH DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES

by

V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENON

Thesis submitted in fullfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

AUGUST 2016

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to say thanks to God for blessing me and

giving me the strength to undertake this journey. Next I would like to express my

deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Dr Fong Soon Fook and his wife for

their encouragement, love and support throughout this journey. Without his guidance

and advice, I would not be able to continue and complete this work. My tribute also

goes to my co-supervisors Dr Aznan Che Ahmad and Dr Mohd Ali Shamsudin for

their constant motivation and assistance. I am enormously grateful to Miss Audrey

Liew, Miss Rebecca, Mr Edmond, Mr Raymond, Mr and Mrs Ramal for their

assistance and support in completing this work.

Special thanks to the Dean, Professor Dr. Hairul Nizam Ismail, the Deputy

Dean, Associate Prof. Dr Shaik Abdul Malik Mohamed Ismail, and the

administrative staff of the School of Educational Studies, USM for providing

facilities, advice and support. Furthermore I would like to thank the headmasters,

teachers and students from the special education schools for the hearing impaired for

their collaboration. My profound acknowledgement to the Director of the

Educational Planning and Research Division, and the Director of the Special

Education Department, Ministry of Education Malaysia for their assistance. On top

of that I would like to thank the principal, teachers and students of SMK Darul

Ridwan for their facilitation and motivation.

iii

Last but not least, I would like to give my heartiest thanks and love to my

beloved wife, Thamil Selvi Sabapathy and my children Prasanadevi, Ishveraj,

Bhismer, Gauthamen and Shamala for their unconditional love, prayers, continuous

inspiration and support throughout all these years that kept me going to complete this

wonderful journey. To all my family members and wonderful friends, I sincerely

thank you from the depth of my heart for making this dream come true.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

ABSTRAK

ABSTRACT

ii

iv

ix

x

xii

xv

xvii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 4

1.3 Purpose of the Study 11

1.4 Research Objectives 12

1.5 Research Questions 12

1.6 Research Hypotheses 14

1.7 Significance of the Study 16

1.8 Theoretical Framework 17

1.8.1 Paivio's Dual Coding Theory 18

1.8.2 Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory 19

1.8.3 Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 20

1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory 22

1.9 Research Framework 24

1.10 Limitations of the Study 24

v

1.11 Definition of Terms 25

1.12 Summary 29

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 30

2.2 The Hearing Impaired 30

2.3 Types of Hearing Loss 31

2.4 Degrees of Hearing Loss 31

2.5 Assistive Technology for the Hearing Impaired 32

2.6 Language and Literacy among Hearing Impaired Students 32

2.7 Sign Language 34

2.8 Manually Coded Language 35

2.8.1 Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu 35

2.9 Theoretical Perspectives 36

2.9.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory 36

2.9.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory 39

2.9.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 43

2.9.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory 51

2.10 Cognitive Styles and Learning 55

2.11 A Review on Existing Sign Language Learning Resources 59

2.11.1 Malaysian Sign Language Learning Resources 60

2.11.1(a) Malaysian Sign Language Website 60

2.11.1(b) MySlang 60

2.11.1(c) i-KOD 61

2.12 Summary 64

vi

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 66

3.2 Research Design 66

3.3 Variables 68

3.4 Research Sample and Sampling 69

3.5 Instructional Material 70

3.6 Instruments 70

3.6.1 Sign Language Test 70

3.6.2 Group Embedded Figures Test 74

3.7 Validity and Reliability 75

3.8 Pilot Study 77

3.9 Research Procedures 79

3.10 Statistical Analysis 82

3.11 Summary 83

CHAPTER 4 - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Introduction 84

4.2 Courseware Development 84

4.3 ADDIE Instructional System Design Model 85

4.3.1 Phase 1: Analyze 86

4.3.1(a) Resources 87

4.3.1(b) Learning Contents 87

4.3.1(c) Learner Characteristics 88

4.3.1(d) Concept Map 89

4.3.2 Phase 2: Design 90

vii

4.3.3 Phase 3: Development 96

4.3.3(a) Software and Hardware 96

4.3.3(a)(i) Articulate Storyline 96

4.3.3(a)(ii) Articulate Quizmaker 97

4.3.3(a)(iii) Sony HDR-PJ810 Handycam Camcorder 99

4.3.3(a)(iv) Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 99

4.3.3(a)(v) Articulate Video Encoder 101

4.3.3(a)(vi) Adobe Illustrator 101

4.3.3(a)(vii) Alpha Testing 102

4.3.4 Phase 4: Implementation 103

4.3.4(a) Pilot Study 104

4.3.4(b) Main Study 104

4.3.5 Phase 5: Evaluation 105

4.4 Summary 106

CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS

5.1 Introduction 107

5.2 Data Analyses 108

5.2.1 Characteristics of the Sample 108

5.2.2 Distribution of Students 108

5.2.3 Results of Statistical Analyses 109

5.2.4 Pretest Scores Statistical Analyses 110

5.2.4(a) Descriptive Statistics 110

5.2.4(b) Homogeneity of Pretest Scores 113

viii

5.2.4(c) Correlation between Pretest Scores and 114Posttest Scores

5.2.5 Statistical Analyses of Posttest Scores 116

5.2.5(a) Descriptive Statistics 116

5.2.5(b) Assumptions Testing for One-way ANOVA 117

5.2.5(c) Assumptions Testing for One-way ANCOVA 125

5.2.6 Main Effects 129

5.2.7 Interaction Effects 135

5.2.7(a) Presentation Modes and Cognitive Styles 135

5.2.8 Testing of Null Hypotheses 139

5.2.8(a) Hypothesis 1 140

5.2.8(b) Hypothesis 2 141

5.3 Summary of Results Analyses 144

CHAPTER 6 - DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction 146

6.2 Discussions 149

6.2.1 Effects of Presentation Modes on Achievement Scores in 149Learning Sign Language

6.2.2 Cognitive Style and Presentation Modes Related to 157Achievement Scores

6.3 Implication of the Study 163

6.3.1 Theoretical Implications 163

6.3.2 Practical Implications 165

6.4 Recommendations for Future Research 167

6.5 Conclusion 168

REFERENCES 171

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix A Preliminary Survey 215

Appendix B Preliminary Survey Analysis 217

Appendix C Sign Language Test (Pretest) 219

Appendix D Sign Language Test (Posttest) 221

Appendix E Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) 223(Malay Version)

Appendix F Examples of Tracing Simple Shape in Complex 229Diagram

Appendix G Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Analysis- 231Sign Language Test

Appendix H Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Analysis- 233Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT)

Appendix I Sign Language Courseware Manual 234

Appendix J List of Words 239

Appendix K Analysis Phase Evaluation Form 243

Appendix L Design Phase Evaluation Form 244

Appendix M Implementation Phase Evaluation Form 246

Appendix N Students' Comments 247

Appendix O Research Permission from School of Educational 248Studies, University of Science, Malaysia

Appendix P Endorsement for Change in the Research Title 249

Appendix Q Research Permission from Malaysian Education 250of Planning Division

Appendix R Research Permission from Ministry of Education, 251Department of Special Education

Appendix S Data for Analysis- SPSS windows version 20.0 253

x

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Preliminary Survey Findings 8

Table 2.1 Severity of Hearing Loss in Decibels (dB) 32

Table 2.2 Comparison between existing sign language learning resources 63

Table 3.1 Random Sampling 70

Table 3.2 Comments given by the SMEs’ on the Sign Language Test 72

Table 3.3 Reliability Analysis of Pretest and GEFT 78

Table 3.4 Research Schedule 81

Table 5.1 Students Distribution among the Presentation Modes 109

Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics of Pretest Scores of Presentation Modes 110

Table 5.3 Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics of Pretest Scores of the 111Presentation Modes

Table 5.4 Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance 113

Table 5.5 Results of One-way ANOVA for Pretest Scores Between 114Groups

Table 5.6 Correlations Between the Pretest Scores and the Posttest 115Scores

Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics of Mean Posttest Scores of the 116Presentation Modes

Table 5.8 Tests of Normality for Posttest Scores 118

Table 5.9 Test of Homogeneity of Variance for Posttest Scores Between 124the Presentation Modes

Table 5.10 ANOVA Results for Posttest Scores between Groups 125

Table 5.11 Homogeneity of Regression Slopes Test 129

Table 5.12 One-way ANCOVA Results for Posttest Scores by Presentation 131Modes with Pretest as Covariate

Table 5.13 Pairwise Comparisons for Presentation Modes 133

xi

Table 5.14 Means, Standard Deviations, Adjusted Means, and Standard 134Errors of Posttest Scores by Presentation Modes

Table 5.15 Two-way ANCOVA for Posttest Scores by Presentation Modes 136and Cognitive Styles with Pretest Scores as Covariate

Table 5.16 Estimated Marginal Means of Cognitive Styles 137

Table 5.17 Estimated Marginal Means by Presentation Modes and 138Cognitive Styles

Table 5.18 Pairwise Comparison for Cognitive Styles 142

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1 Sign language video, text and image (SLTI) 11

Figure 1.2 Sign language video and text (SLT) 11

Figure 1.3 Sign language video and image (SLI) 12

Figure 1.4 Theoretical framework 18

Figure 1.5 Dual Coding Theory 19

Figure 1.6 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 21

Figure 1.7 “Dual Iceberg” Representation of bilingual proficiency 23

Figure 1.8 Research framework 24

Figure 2.1 Visual representation of the Cognitive Load Theory 40

Figure 2.2 Linking meaning to print 54

Figure 2.3 A screenshot of MSL website 60

Figure 2.4 A screenshot of MySlang dictionary 61

Figure 2.5 A screenshot of i-KOD dictionary 61

Figure 2.6 A screenshot of the proposed courseware 64

Figure 3.1 Presentation modes X cognitive styles - a3 X 2 67quasi-experiment design

Figure 3.2 Non-equivalent control group design 68

Figure 3.3 Research variables 68

Figure 3.4 Bloom’s Revised Digital Taxonomy 74

Figure 3.5 Research design of the study 79

Figure 4.1 ADDIE Instructional System Design Model 86

Figure 4.2 Task and concept map of the courseware 90

Figure 4.3 Structure of the courseware 92

Figure 4.4 Flowchart of the courseware 93

xiii

Figure 4.5 Storyboard template for SLTI mode 94

Figure 4.6 A screenshot of the SLTI mode 94

Figure 4.7 Storyboard template for SLT mode 94

Figure 4.8 A screenshot of the SLT mode 95

Figure 4.9 Storyboard template for SLI mode 95

Figure 4.10 A screenshot of the SLI mode 95

Figure 4.11 A screenshot of sign language video, text and image 97compilation in Articulate Storyline

Figure 4.12 A screenshot of True/ False quiz question using Articulate 98Quizmaker

Figure 4.13 A screenshot of Multiple Choice quiz question using 98Articulate Quizmaker

Figure 4.14 A screenshot of the quiz results using Articulate 98Quizmaker

Figure 4.15 Sign language video recording in progress 99

Figure 4.16 A screenshot editing a recording of a series of words in 100sign language video using Sony Vegas Movie Studio

Figure 4.17 A screenshot of a word in sign language video split from the 100original recording using Sony Vegas Movie Studio

Figure 4.18 A screenshot of the word in sign language video rendered and 100and saved in wmv. format using Sony Vegas Movie Studio

Figure 4.19 A screenshot of an image created using Adobe Illustrator 101

Figure 4.20 A screenshot of the image in colour using Adobe Illustrator 102

Figure 4.21 Publish the courseware in CD format using Articulate 103Storyline

Figure 4.22 Published files output from Articulate Storyline for CD format 103

Figure 5.1 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLTI mode 112

Figure 5.2 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLT mode 112

Figure 5.3 Normal Q-Q plot of pretest scores for SLI mode 113

xiv

Figure 5.4 Histogram of posttest scores for the total sample 120

Figure 5.5 Normal Q-Q plot of the total posttest scores 120

Figure 5.6 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLTI mode 121

Figure 5.7 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLTI mode 121

Figure 5.8 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLT mode 122

Figure 5.9 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLT mode 122

Figure 5.10 Histogram of posttest scores for the SLI mode 123

Figure 5.11 Normal Q-Q plot of posttest scores for SLT mode 123

Figure 5.12 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 127posttest scores for the SLTI mode

Figure 5.13 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 127posttest scores for the SLT mode

Figure 5.14 Scatter plot showing the relationship between pretest and 128posttest scores for the SLI mode

Figure 5.15 Profile plot of estimated marginal means by presentation modes 135

Figure 5.16 Plot of interaction between presentation modes and and 139cognitive styles for adjusted means posttest scores

Figure 6.1 Linking meaning to sign language, image and print 155

xv

KESAN MOD PERSEMBAHAN DALAM PEMBELAJARAN BAHASA

ISYARAT DALAM KALANGAN PELAJAR BERMASALAH

PENDENGARAN PELBAGAI GAYA KOGNITIF

ABSTRAK

Kajian kuantitatif ini menyiasat kesan mod persembahan ke atas

pembelajaran bahasa isyarat dalam kalangan 147 orang pelajar bermasalah

pendengaran di sekolah rendah pendidikan khas di Malaysia. Suatu reka bentuk

faktorial kuasi-eksperimen 2 x 3 dengan ukuran berulang bagi pemboleh ubah

moderator dalam reka bentuk praujian-pascaujian kumpulan kawalan tidak setara

telah disesuaikan dalam kajian ini. Pemboleh ubah bebas adalah tiga mod perisian

koswer iaitu video Bahasa Isyarat, Teks dan Imej (SLTI), video Bahasa Isyarat dan

Teks (SLT) dan video Bahasa Isyarat dan Imej (SLI). Pemboleh ubah moderator

adalah pelbagai gaya kognitif (FD dan FI). Pemboleh ubah bersandar adalah

pencapaian pelajar seperti yang diukur oleh skor pascaujian. Kajian ini terdiri

daripada dua bahagian, iaitu pembangunan dan penilaian. Dalam bahagian pertama, 3

mod persembahan direka dan dibangunkan. Dalam bahagian kedua, kajian ini

mengkaji kesan tiga mod persembahan bahasa isyarat multimedia ke atas pelajar

bermasalah pendengaran pelbagai gaya kognitif. Analisis statistik ANOVA dan

ANCOVA telah dijalankan untuk menguji hipotesis dalam kajian ini. Hasil kajian

menunjukkan bahawa pelajar bermasalah pendengaran mencapai perbezaan yang

signifikan dalam skor pascaujian dalam tiga mod persembahan. Pelajar bermasalah

pendengaran yang menggunakan mod persembahan SLTI mencapai markah

pascaujian tertinggi. Kajian ini juga menunjukkan bahawa tidak terdapat perbezaan

xvi

yang signifikan antara skor pascaujian yang dicapai oleh pelajar bermasalah

pendengaran dengan pelbagai gaya kognitif dalam tiga mod persembahan. Ia juga

menunjukkan bahawa tidak terdapat kesan interaksi yang signifikan antara kaedah

rawatan dan gaya kognitif. Kesimpulannya, kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa mod

SLTI dengan video bahasa isyarat, teks dan imej adalah paling berkesan dalam

pembelajaran bahasa isyarat.

xvii

EFFECTS OF PRESENTATION MODES ON THE LEARNING OF SIGN

LANGUAGE AMONG HEARING IMPAIRED STUDENTS WITH

DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES

ABSTRACT

This quantitative study investigated the effects of presentation modes on the

learning of sign language among 147 hearing impaired students in special education

primary schools for the hearing impaired in Malaysia. This study consists of two

parts, namely, development and evaluation. A 2 x 3 quasi-experimental factorial

design with repeated measure for the moderator variable in a non-equivalent control

group pretest-posttest design was adopted in this study. The independent variables

are the three presentation modes of the courseware namely Sign Language Video,

Text and Image (SLTI), Sign Language Video and Text (SLT) and Sign Language

Video and Image (SLI). The moderator variable is the different cognitive styles (FD

and FI). The dependent variable is the students' achievement scores as measured by

the posttest scores. In the first part, the presentation modes were designed and

developed. In the second part, this study investigated the effects of the three

presentation modes on hearing impaired students of different cognitive styles.

ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses were conducted to test the null hypotheses in this

study. The results revealed the hearing impaired students attained significant

difference in the mean achievement scores in the three presentation modes. The

hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode attained the highest mean

achievement score. The study also revealed that there was no significant difference

among the mean achievement scores attained by hearing impaired students with

xviii

different cognitive styles among the three presentation modes. It also showed that

there were no significant interaction effect among the presentation modes and

cognitive styles. In conclusion, this study indicated that the SLTI mode consists of

sign language video, text and image is most effective in the learning of sign

language.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

There are 58,706 hearing impaired people registered in Malaysia (Social

Statistics Bulletin, 2014). According to Schirmer (2001), hearing impaired people are

a unique culture group with own customs, norms, habits, thought patterns, language,

and common experiences. Hearing impaired people use sign language to

communicate and Ethnologue listed 130 sign languages throughout the world (Lewis,

2009).

Sign language use a combination of body language, gestures, facial

expression and eye gaze to communicate among hearing impaired people (Cherry,

2012; Ahmad & Ghani, 2011; Liwicki & Everingham, 2009; Trevor & Adam, 2007).

For example, a question can be shown by raised eyebrows, widened eyes, and

leaning the head forward slightly. According to Valli and Lucas (1998), sign

language is a well-structured and independent language.

American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), Australian

Sign Language (Auslan), and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) are all used in

predominately English speaking countries (Gordon, 2008). Malaysian Sign Language

(MSL) and Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) are used in the hearing impaired

schools for the purpose of communication and teaching the Malay language (Savita

and Athirah, 2011).

2

Golos (2010a) stated that the academic achievement of the hearing impaired

students based on their literacy rate was very low. According to Holt (1993) and

Traxler (2000), hearing impaired students read below a fourth grade level.

Marschark, Green, Hindmarsh, and Walker (2000) stated because of the low

academic level affected the hearing impaired students' social and cognitive

development. Limitations also include minimized ability to organize and produce

from memory the associations between concepts (Marschark, 2003). This results in

challenges to the child’s ability to understand real-world situations socially or

emotionally (Cambra, 2005; Rieffe, Terwogt, & Smit, 2003).

A hearing impaired child in the family affects parent-child relationships and

communication patterns (Ahmad & Ghani, 2004; Christiansen & Leigh, 2004;

Marschark, 1993). According to Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), ninety percent of

hearing impaired children has hearing families who need to learn sign language.

Normally, the hearing impaired child start learning sign language skills late because

of the difficulties in sharing the spoken language in the family (Marschark, 2001).

According to Golos (2010a), hearing impaired students' enter school with

limited language experience. Biemiller (1999) stated that late development in spoken

language among children affects reading comprehension and academic achievement.

Mayberry's (2002) study found a significant correlation between sign language skills

and reading skills. Morford and Mayberry (2000) in their study on tests for second

language acquisition of both signed and spoken language stated that individuals

exposed to languages at earlier ages consistently do better than individuals exposed

to language at a later age. Hearing impaired children who have acquired American

3

Sign Language (ASL) from birth did better than hearing impaired children who

acquired ASL at a later age on language skills (Mayberry, 1993). According to

Mitchell and Karchmer (2004), ninety percent of hearing impaired children is born to

hearing parents who do not know sign language and only twenty percent of parents

of hearing impaired children become fluent in ASL. According to Vaccari and

Marshark (1997), early language intervention is needed to help hearing impaired

children to improve their language skills.

Kochkin, Luxford, Northern, Mason, and Tharpe (2007) found hearing

impaired students' poor linguistic skills; affect their social interaction, language and

communication. Sign language is crucial for the hearing impaired child, their family

and friends so that the hearing impaired child is exposed to as much language as

possible. If a child is to attend school then oral and written communication is

important too. A hearing impaired student may not have the language skills to allow

him to keep up with his hearing peers.

Hearing impaired students are taught using different approaches; auditory-

oral, auditory-verbal, cued speech, finger spelling, Total Communication, oral

English and bilingual method. In Singapore, Total Communication approach is used

to teach English to the hearing impaired (Phua, 2004). In Japan, the bilingual method

is used by hearing impaired students to learn Japanese language (reading and

writing) using Japanese Sign Language (Honna & Kato, 2003). English, Hindi and

other languages in the Indian Continent are taught using Indian Sign Language using

the bilingual method (Zeshan, Vasishta, & Sethna, 2005).

4

According to Baker (2001), Cummins (2000), and Freeman and Freeman,

(1998), educators are encouraging the use of bilingual method for hearing impaired

students to learn English, French, Spanish, Italian or Germany as a second language

in the European countries. Nover and Andrews (1998) have proposed using

American Sign Language (ASL) to teach English to hearing impaired children.

According to Johnson (1989), sign language as the primary language may form the

basis for learning English as a second-language, since ASL provides hearing

impaired children a visual means to access language and literacy. Malaysian hearing

impaired students depend on the Malaysian Sign Language (MSL) for

communication and they have low proficiency in the Malay language (Malaysian

Federation of the Deaf, 2000). The hearing impaired students are taught the Malay

language using Kod Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) and MSL (Malaysian Federa-

tion of the Deaf, 2000).

The proposed study emerged as a timely respond to the challenges faced by

the hearing impaired students in learning the sign language. This study will provide a

learning resource for the hearing impaired students, parents with hearing impaired

children and the hearing community to learn sign language. This research is to

examine the effects of the three presentation modes on hearing impaired students

with different cognitive styles (Field dependent and Field independent) in learning

sign language.

1.2 Problem Statement

The hearing impaired community seldom received sufficient language

intervention to consistently achieve linguistic competencies that allow for effective

5

communication, socialization, and thinking skills. They continue to suffer from

significant delays in social skills as well as from difficulties in cognitive

development, including academic areas such as literacy, math, and problem solving,

as compared to hearing peers (Marschark, 2003). According to Schirmer and

McGough (2005), hearing impaired students perform lower on standardized

measures of achievement and graduate with fourth grade level reading skills

compared to hearing peers. They also display poor quality written skills and show

weakness in comprehension and use of function words in written text (Channon &

Sayers, 2007). The hearing impaired students also demonstrate poorer linguistic and

academic outcomes than their hearing peers (Rieffe et al., 2003). According to Erting

(2001), the majority of hearing impaired students are coming to school without the

same language skills and background knowledge as their hearing students. Based on

the importance of this communication, there are problems among Malaysian hearing

impaired students in studying the same syllabus as the typical hearing student. They

need to sit for major examinations such as UPSR, PMR and SPM (Yasin, Bari, &

Hassan, 2013). The President of the Malaysian Federation of the Deaf (MFD),

Mohamad Sazali Shaari stated that many hearing impaired students fail every year

especially in the Malay Language and this is a compulsory subject in any major

examination, which makes them to fail the whole examination (Abu Hassan, 2012).

The bottom line is that the academic achievement remains an area of concern for the

hearing impaired students and they are often left behind, especially in terms of

learning because of deafness.

There are a number of studies done in Malaysia associated with multimedia in

hearing impaired education. The i-Kod was developed to enable users to learn Kod

6

Tangan Bahasa Melayu (KTBM) (Muharram, 2007). The i-Kod is a translator of the

KTBM to Malay language. Next, the MySlang dictionary was developed to assist the

learning and teaching of MSL. The instructions in MySlang dictionary is in English.

The content of the dictionary was developed based on the book entitled; Malaysian

Sign Language, published by the Malaysian Federation of the Deaf. Two 3D

animated human characters (male and female) were used to animate the signing of

words. MySlang dictionary has 216 daily used words (Lim, 2008).

The e-Sign Dictionary, an electronic MSL dictionary was developed for the

use of the hearing impaired community and the general public. It is a couresware that

provided instructions in English, Malay, and Chinese language. The dictionary has

500 words with animation to illustrate the signing of each word, illustration of its

meaning with a picture (if available), synonym, antonym, and sample sentences (Ow,

2009). Next, the Malay Sign Language Courseware for hearing impaired children

was developed with 3D images with video capability and animated rotational

view (Savitha & Nur Athirah, 2011). Then the iMSL; Malay Sign Language for the

hearing impaired was developed and the contents in iMSL taught users the basic

MSL from finger spelling (alphabets), numbers, and some basic things used in daily

life (Nur Tahrina, 2012).

The need for the study was triggered by first, the limited number of resources

easily available to learn sign language for hearing impaired students. Furthermore,

the available resources to learn sign language was not based on the revised

curriculum of the special education for the hearing impaired. The revised curriculum

for the special education for the hearing impaired was introduced in 2010 (Bahasa

7

Isyarat Komunikasi, 2010). The learning contents of this study is based on the

Bahasa Isyarat Komunikasi (2010). The lack in fulfilment with the revised

curriculum for the primary school for the hearing impaired in the available resources,

was the need for the study to be conducted. Secondly, this study was carried out to

find the best combination of media (SLTI, SLT or SLI) in the presentation modes

that will enhance the learning of sign language among the hearing impaired students

because hearing impaired people depended on visual to learn (Supalla, 1991;

Luckner & Humphries, 1992; Livingston, 1997; Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002;

Marschark & Hauser, 2012; Mather & Clark, 2012). Based on this, the researcher

believed that hearing impaired students need visual media (combination of sign

language video, text and image) to learn (Gentry, Chinn, & Moulton, 2004).

Furthermore, the need was supported by the needs analysis conducted among 33 sign

language teachers.

The researcher carried out a survey (Appendix A) in April 2013 among sign

language teachers. The survey questions were created from literature review and

analysis from sign language teachers. Thirty-three sign language teachers

responded to the survey. Table 1.1 summarizes the preliminary survey findings and

the detailed analysis is attached in Appendix B.

8

Table 1.1

Preliminary Survey Findings

No. Statements Agree Disagree Not

Sure

1. I am confident in teaching sign language. 45.5% 42.4% 12.1%

2. I use sign language to teach the Malay

language.

78.8% 18.2% 3.0%

3. I can understand the sign language found in

the sign language book and sign language

dictionaries.

75.8% 15.2% 9.1%

4. Sign language courses were provided

during my training in college/ university.

57.6% 30.3% 12.1%

5. I was given sufficient training in sign

language.

27.3% 57.6% 15.2%

6. Sign language videos will be useful in

learning sign language.

78.8% 12.1% 9.1%

7. I encounter problems to correct each

student's sign language in class.

42.4% 48.5% 9.1%

8. The varied sign language competence of

each student in class is making it hard for

me to monitor his/ her progress in sign

language.

48.5% 42.4% 9.1%

9. I have difficulties finding resources to teach

sign language.

42.4% 45.5% 12.1%

9

10. No audio visual aids is provided to support

my teaching of sign language.

66.7% 18.2% 15.2%

11. Hearing impaired students have problems in

learning the Malay language correctly.

69.7% 21.2% 9.1%

12. Hearing impaired students have problems in

reading in the Malay language.

81.8% 6.1% 12.1%

13. Hearing impaired students have problems

writing in Malay language

84.8% 6.1% 9.1%

14. Hearing impaired students do not have

sufficient time to practise their sign

language in class.

42.4% 39.4% 18.2%

15. Hearing impaired students feel comfortable

to practise their sign language in front of

others.

42.4% 36.4% 21.2%

The findings showed that 78.8% of the sign language teachers agreed they

use sign language to teach the Malay language and 6 9 .7 % of the teachers indicated

that hearing impaired students have problems in learning the Malay language. In

addition, 81.8% of the teachers highlighted hearing impaired students have problems

reading in the Malay language and 84.8% agreed that hearing impaired students face

problems writing in the Malay language. Research by Hoffmeister (2000), Strong

and Prinz (2000), Padden and Ramsey (2000), and Chamberlain and Mayberry

(2000) found that sign language skills is related to reading skills. According to

Mayberry (1993), hearing impaired students exposed to ASL from birth, develop

10

literacy skills that allow them to outperform hearing impaired students with delayed

ASL development on vocabulary tasks and language skills. These findings show that

the barrier to hearing impaired students' reading development is not simply unable to

speak or read in Malay language but rather poor language development, in any form,

signed or spoken.

Facilities for the hearing impaired students, specifically the teaching aids, are

still lacking. 66.7% of the teachers surveyed stated that there are no visual aids

provided to teach sign language. About 78.8% teachers agreed that sign language

videos will be helpful since there are very limited sign language learning resources

available for the hearing impaired students, their parents, teachers, the hearing

impaired community and the normal hearing community to learn sign language.

Based on the survey results, we can conclude that sign language teachers face

challenges in teaching sign language and Malay literacy to the hearing impaired

students are also partly due to limited sign language resources.

Due to the challenges faced in duplication of the best teaching and learning

methods for the hearing impaired, the courseware was designed, developed and

researched upon. The best suitable presentation mode will be developed to enable the

hearing impaired students to learn sign language in an interactive and convenient

way and at the same time help to learn the Malay language.

11

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The aim of this study was to design, develop and evaluate three presentation

modes in the learning of sign language among hearing impaired students with

different cognitive styles. The three presentation modes to be developed are:

(i) Sign Language video + Text + Image (SLTI) (Figure 1.1),

(ii) Sign Language video + Text (SLT) (Figure 1.2),

(iii) Sign Language video + Image (SLI) (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.1 Sign language video + text + image (SLTI)

Figure 1.2 Sign language video + text (SLT)

11










11










12

Figure 1.3 Sign language video + image (SLI)

1.4 Research Objectives

The research objectives are:

(i) To design and develop three presentation modes incorporating sign language

video, text and image.

(ii) To establish the effects of using three presentation modes: Sign Language

video + Text + Image (SLTI); Sign Language video + Text (SLT); and Sign

Language video + Image (SLI) in the learning of sign language on the

achievement scores.

(iii) To establish whether there is any significant difference in achievement scores

among hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles (Field

dependent and Field independent) in using the three presentation modes.

1.5 Research Questions

This study is ruled by the following research questions;

1. Will the hearing impaired students attain different achievement scores among

the three presentation modes?

12









achievement scores.








12









achievement scores.








13

1.1 Will the hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video +

Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement

scores (AS) than hearing impaired students using the Sign Language

video + Text (SLT) mode?

1.2 Will hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text +

Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS)

than hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image

(SLI) mode?

1.3 Will hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Text

(SLT) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS) than

hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video + Image

(SLI) mode?

2. Will the hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles, Field

dependent (FD) and Field independent (FI) attain different achievement

scores among the three presentation modes?

2.1 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video +


scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign

Language video + Text (SLT) mode?



scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign

Language video + Image (SLI) mode?

14


Text (SLT) mode attain significantly higher achievement scores (AS)

than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video +

Image (SLI) mode?

2.4 Are there interaction effects among presentation modes and cognitive

styles on the achievement scores?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

Based on the research questions, the researcher's purpose is to test the

following null hypotheses formulated from the research questions. The statistical

significance of .05 is used to test the null hypotheses.

H01 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS)

among the hearing impaired students using the three presentation modes

(SLTI, SLT and SLI).

ASSLTI = ASSLT = ASSLI

H01.1 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS)

between the hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and the

SLT mode.

ASSLTI = ASSLT

H01.2 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores

(AS) between the hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and

the SLI mode.

ASSLTI = ASSLI

15


(AS) between the hearing impaired students using the SLT mode and

the SLI mode.

ASSLT = ASSLI

H02 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores (AS)

between the hearing impaired students cognitive styles (FD and FI) in the

three presentation modes (SLTI, SLT and SLI).

ASFI = ASFD


(AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and

FD hearing impaired students using the SLT mode.

ASFD-SLTI = ASFD-SLT


(AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and

FD hearing impaired students using the SLI mode.

ASFD-SLTI = ASFD-SLI


(AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLT mode and

FD hearing impaired students using the SLI mode.

ASFD-SLT = ASFD-SLI

H02.4 There is no interaction effect between the presentation modes and

cognitive styles on the mean achievement scores.

16

1.7 Significance of the Study

This study is significant because it examines the effect of the three

presentation modes (SLTI, SLT, SLI) on hearing impaired students in the learning of

sign language. According to Brown (2000) who stated that meaningful learning

occurs when learning contents involve text, image and screen literacy, supported the

significance and relevance of this research. This study hopes to identify the type of

presentation mode (SLTI, SLT, SLI) in a sign language learning environment that

will foster appropriate sign language learning among hearing impaired students of

different cognitive styles. Through the ongoing evaluation done during the design

and development process of the presentation modes, a useable learning environment

and design principles are produced. This study suggests a practical instructional

design and development framework that can guide future multimedia developmental

efforts.

This study also contributes to the development of teaching strategies and

resources for the hearing impaired students. The findings will add to the design of

instructional technology for the learning of sign language in the Sign Language

Curriculum Specifications. The results of this study will provide ample resource for

curriculum designers to develop instructional materials for the hearing impaired

students. This study focuses on the relationship between the presentation mode on

hearing impaired students with different cognitive styles to increase the achievement

scores in the learning of sign language. This study is important as the sign language

video with image and text will make a deep impact in the teaching and learning of

sign language.

17

The courseware designed is navigable, user-friendly, and self-paced. The

hearing impaired students can select the content to learn. The courseware encourages

self paced learning and self evaluation. It guides the hearing impaired students

systematically and at the same time they learn at their own pace, whereby they can

begin and pause the lessons as well as replay the lessons again at a pace effective to

them. The hearing impaired students can decide when, where, what and how fast to

learn sign language. According to Scheiter and Gerjets (2007), learner control

supports active learning and motivates the learners. The hearing impaired students

will learn to be more self-reliant in forming their learning strategy. This will

definitely help low ability learners from being disappointed and the high ability

learners from getting uninterested (Rashid, Aini, Majid, & Chow, 2002). Moreover,

the courseware is meant for hearing impaired students to keep on drilling and

practising learning the sign language at their own pace. Finally, the researcher hopes

that this study can help hearing impaired students, parents with hearing impaired

children, and normal hearing people who are interested to learn sign language benefit

from this study.

1.8 Theoretical Framework

The following theories form the theoretical framework of this study;

1.8.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986)

1.8.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1999)

1.8.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001)

1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory (Cummin's 1979)

18

A short explanation of the theories is given below and additional explanations as how

it is related to the hearing impaired students are given in Chapter 2. Figure 1.4 is the

theoretical framework of this study.

Figure 1.4 Theoretical Framework

1.8.1 Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory

The Dual Coding Theory suggested by Paivio (1986) gave equal emphasis to

verbal and non-verbal processing. Dual Coding Theory involves two subsystems, as

shown in Figure 1.5, a verbal system, logogens, or words (either spoken or written),

and the nonverbal system, imagens, or images (Paivio, 2007; 2014). Paivio’s Dual

Coding Theory (1986) stated that the verbal and non-verbal processing systems were

important in language learning. Textbooks and educational literature use written

words (logogens) and images/ illustrations (imagens) to relay information to the

reader. Paivio proposed that this method, which combines the logogens and imagens

coding systems, enhances the reader’s learning abilities and retention to a greater

degree than using only one coding system, such as text only or image only, or audio

only (Paivio, 2007).

19

Figure 1.5 Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986)

Paivio's Dual Coding Theory (1986) suggested that the logogen and the

imagen, work together to form associations in the mind. When a reader decodes the

words, he forms referential connections between the words and the mental images

(Clark & Paivio, 1991). For example, when you read a word you think about the

meaning and also make a connection to the image of that word or picture an image in

your mind’s eye (Picker, 2013). The specific visual representation will vary among

readers, but exists (Wood & Endres, 2004; Gambrell & Jawitz, 1993; Gambrell &

Bales 1986).

1.8.2 Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive Load Theory according to Sweller, Van Merrienboer and Pass

(1998) was made up of a limited working memory with separate processing

information inputs for visual and auditory that interacted with an unlimited long-term

memory. According to Sweller et al. (1998), intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous

cognitive load, and germane cognitive load are three types of cognitive load. Intrinsic

cognitive load happens in an interaction between individual differences like students’

20

past knowledge or experiences with the nature of the instructional materials. For

example, intrinsic cognitive load will rise if a student is facing a complex

instructional content. But, if a student encounters a situation that they have

experienced before, they will produce smaller levels of intrinsic load (Paas,

Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003; Sweller et al., 1998).

Germane cognitive load happens when schemas and mental models are

constructed and stored in long-term memory. Schemas classify information in long-

term memory that helps to understand new situations help to reduce working

memory load (Sweller et al., 1998). Schemas and mental models help learning by

automating the new information to be learned, thus contribute to germane load (Paas,

et al. 2003; Sweller et al., 1998).

Extraneous cognitive load happens when the presentation mode and learning

activities interferes with schema formation and automation (Sweller et al., 1998).

The extraneous load is triggered by the format of the instruction rather than learning

content (Sweller et al., 1998). According to Sweller et al. (1998), the effects of high

extraneous load may not be obvious when intrinsic and germane load are low.

1.8.3 Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

The multimedia principle proposed that “people learn more deeply from

words and pictures than from words alone” (Mayer, 2001). This model is based upon

three primary assumptions:

i. Visual and auditory information are processed through separate and distinct

information processing channels.

21

ii. Each channel is limited in its ability to process information.

iii. Processing information in channels is an active cognitive process designed to

construct coherent mental representations (Mayer, 2001).

According to Mayer (2001, p. 54), the learner must engage in five cognitive

processes (Figure 1.6), that is;

i. selecting relevant words for processing in verbal working memory,

ii. selecting relevant images for processing in visual working memory,

iii. organizing selected words into a verbal mental model,

iv. organizing selected images into a visual mental model, and

v. integrating verbal and visual representations as well as prior knowledge.

S = selecting, O = organising, I = integrating

Figure 1.6 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001)

According to Mayer (2001), only a limited amount of information can be

processed in a channel at a time, and the information can only be interpreted by

creating mental representations. The multimedia presentation of text, images and

auditory information are selected and organized to produce logical mental constructs

(Mayer, 2001). Mayer (2001) examined the roles of sensory memory, working

22

memory, and long-term memory. Mayer (2001; 2009) carried out a series of studies

identifying multimedia principles that aids recall and transfer of information with the

assumption that the learner has capacity to store pictorial and verbal information and

finally integrate them during the learning process.

1.8.4 Cummins' Linguistic Interdependence Theory

Linguistic Interdependence Theory proposes that the relationship of the first

language supports the learning of another language (Cummins, 2000; 2001; 2006).

This theory puts forward that every language contains surface features and

underlying those surface appearance of language are proficiencies that are common

across languages (Cummins, 2001). Cummins (2001) proposed a Common

Underlying Proficiency (CUP) model where the first language and the second

language were seen as interdependent in a bilingual approach.

Cummins' (1980; 2001) CUP model is represented with the "dual iceberg

metaphor", where the two peaks of the iceberg are equal for totally bilingual

individuals. The cognitive language proficiency that is much more significant is not

obvious in daily communication is below the surface. According to Cummins (1980;

2001), the higher order thinking skills are located in the depths of this model

(Cummins, 1980; 2001). The model "Dual Iceberg" is shown in Figure 1.7.

23

Figure 1.7. “Dual Iceberg” Representation of bilingual proficiency (Cummins, 2001)

According to Branford and Donovan (2005) prior knowledge is needed for

the interpretation of text. Cummins (2000) stated that a student who had strong

conceptual knowledge in the first language, has more cognitive ability to read the

text in the second language. The studies by Baker (2001), Cummins (2000), Freeman

and Freeman (1998) found significant relationship between ASL skill and English

literacy supported the Linguistic Interdependence Theory (Cummins, 2006).

According to Cummins (2003) and Hakuta (1986), linguistic knowledge in

the first language transfers to the acquisition process of learning the second language.

Nover and Andrews (1998), Stone (1995), Johnson et al. (1989) have suggested that

the primary language for hearing impaired children is sign language because it can be

easily learned by them. Furthermore, sign language can provide linguistic access to

language skills.

Hearing impaired students’ below-average reading skills is likely from

lacking of sign language instruction, rather than the lacking of hearing impaired

students' ability (DeLana, Gentry, & Andrews, 2007). Research has shown that

COMMON UNDERLYING PROFICIENCY

24

failing to develop the first language results in challenges in academic and vocational

success (Niemann, Greenstein, & David, 2004; Strong & Prinz, 1997). According to

Chamberlain and Mayberry (2000), ASL development is related to reading

development in hearing impaired students whose primary language is sign language.

1.9 Research Framework

The research framework in Figure 1.8 displays the connections between the

variables. The independent variables are the three presentation modes namely Sign

Language video, Text and Image (SLTI); Sign Language video and Text (SLT); and

Sign Language video and Image (SLI). The dependent variable is the hearing

impaired students’ achievement scores. The moderator variable is the cognitive

styles.

Figure 1.8 Research framework

1.10 Limitations of the Study

It is accepted that there are limitations which may affect the overview of the

research in this study. First, this study's samples are restricted to only hearing

impaired students recruited from hearing impaired schools in Peninsular Malaysia.

Documents

V. CHADRA SHAKARAN A/L V. V. MENONeprints.usm.my/32323/1/V._CHADRA_SHAKARAN_24(NN).pdf · Articulate Quizmaker Figure 4.14 A screenshot of the quiz results using Articulate 98 Quizmaker