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
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
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)
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
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
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?
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 +
Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement
scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign
Language video + Text (SLT) mode?
2.2 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video +
Text + Image (SLTI) mode attain significantly higher achievement
scores (AS) than FD hearing impaired students using the Sign
Language video + Image (SLI) mode?
14
2.3 Will FD hearing impaired students using the Sign Language video +
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
H01.3 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores
(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
H02.1 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores
(AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and
FD hearing impaired students using the SLT mode.
ASFD-SLTI = ASFD-SLT
H02.2 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores
(AS) between FD hearing impaired students using the SLTI mode and
FD hearing impaired students using the SLI mode.
ASFD-SLTI = ASFD-SLI
H02.3 There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores
(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.